Full text of "The government of Ireland, past, present, and prospective .."

See other formats

UC-NRLF

$B 757 bflM

( I

\'\>'<^

% < ),

A \'>''( .•• ;

REESE LIBRARY

OF THK

UNIVERSITY .OF CALIFORNIA.

Received ^^-^^^"^''^''-^'2-^ ;i8^^

</^

Accessions No. .^/C^'S Shelf No.

-8s>

>^A

I *£.

^^,.. ,

-*•..•:••:

,/;%.-.•

^--ITNr-

f *.J^'

l^''^'

THE GOVEilENT OF IREUi

Past, Present, and Prospective.

In Four Parts,

Author of ^''Memorials of Lord F. Cavendish,''''
'■'■ Gamhetta : a Monograph,'''' Sfc.

WITH SHORT INTRODUCTIONS TO THE VARIOUS PARTS BY

ALFRED ILLINGWORTH, Esq., M.P. for West Bradford;

THOMAS WAYMAN, Esq., M.P. for Elland;

JOHN BARRAN, Esq., M.P. for Otley; and

Right Hon. G. J. SHAW-LEFEYRE, M.P. for Central Bradford.

AND AN APPENDIX ON THE

-PRESENT LAND WAR IN IRELAND,"

r. ELLIS, late Vicar of Wilsden.

V^^ Of THE '^

UNIVERSITY
§^\f^^^^VY\OQ One Shilling.

In Cloth, Two Shillings and Sixpence.

#i?aJ»f0r5>: Thomas Brear & Co., Limited.
gonbott : SiMPKiN, Marshall & Co.

^/^f-^

In publishing my Lectures, I yield to the the pressure of
friends who, having listened to the arguments and facts advanced,
have wished to obtain them in a permanent form for purposes of
reference. I can only hope that they may afford some help to
those who desire to advance the national cause of Ireland in
the English constituencies. I am much indebted to the authors
whose works are named in the list of authorities recorded by me,
and to gentlemen who have freely placed at my disposal books
and Parliamentary documents, which have aided me in my work.
I am glad also to acknowledge the kindness and courtesy of The
Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P.); Mr. William
O'Brien, M.P, ; Mr. T. Harrington, M.P.; and other National
Leaders; for their readiness to facilitate my enquiries in Ireland.
Neither must I omit to note the generous willingness of Ministers
of Religion, and other gentlemen in Ulster, to speed me in my
study of the questions at issue. Above all, I am under obligation
to the promoters of the Bradford Free Library and Mechanics'
Institute, for without these Institutions I could not have obtained
all the books I have read in the preparation of these Lectures.

s. Lloyd.

I, SUMMERSEAT PlACE,

Bradford.

List of Authorities.

^ Arnold's (Matthew) Essays.

Blackie's — What does History teach ?
(^ Blackwood's Magazine.
u Burke's Published Works.
IT Butt's — Land Tenure.

Buxton — Mr. Gladstone's Irish Bills.
K Campbell's — Lives of the Chancellors.

Clancy Q. J.) — A Year of Unionist Coercion.

Commission Reports.

D'Alton's — History of County Dublin.

Deane's History of Ireland.

Dicey's — England's case against Home Rule.

Dufferin's Ireland and Irish Emigration and Tenure of Land,

Duffy's Gavan — Bird's-eye View of Irish History.

Duffy's — Four years of Irish History.
i^Froude's English in Ireland.
i^Froude's History of England.
•-Godkin's Land War.
^ Green's History of the English People.

Handbook to Home Rule.
•- Hansard's Debates.

Healy's — A Word for Ireland.

Healy's — The Irish Problem and how to solve it.

Healy's — Why is there a Land Question ?
•^ Hume's History of England.

Kinnear's— Tracts on Ireland.

Lawless — rlreland : Story of the Nations.
KLecky's England in the Eighteenth Century.
^ Lecky's Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland.

Leland's History of Ireland.

McCarthy's (J. H.) Outline of Irish History.

McGeoghegan — History of Ireland.

McNeill's — The Irish Parliament ; English Interference with

Irish Industries.
Mitchell (John)— History of Ireland.
Mullhall's— Fifty years of Progress.
National League Pamphlets.
Newspaper Reports.
O'Connor's— The Parnell Movement.
O'Rourke's — History of Irish Famine.
Prendergast's Cromwellian Settlement.
Parliamentary Reports.
Past and Present Policy in Ireland.
Robbin's Practical Politics.
Sadler's Ireland's Evils and their Remedies.
Scruton's Lecture.

Shaw-Lefevre's — Peel and O'Connell.
Shaw-Lefevre's — Incidents of Coercion.

Smith's (Goldwin), Lectures— Irish History and Irish Character.
Speeches of .bright, Butt, -^obden, Fawcett, K^ladstone,

Grattan, Flood.
Spenser's View of the State of Ireland.
Sullivan's — New Ireland.'
Swift's Works.

Transactions of Relief Committee of Friends.
Watson's Review of Irish History.

Wylie's — Which Sovereign : Queen Victoria or the Pope ?
Young's Tour in Ireland.

All possible light and guidance are needed in the great Irish
controversy which is now absorbing public attention.

The opinions and views of those who have hearts to feel,
and have studied the problems to be solved, and have also taken
the trouble to visit Ireland to mix among her people, and to
get at their feelings and experiences, are at this moment of
special value.

In the book the author has now presented to the public, the
fads and refledions of an earnest and sincere friend to human
progress are given in warm and vigourous language.

I wish for this effort a wide circulation, and trust it will insure
in the minds of all inquirers a true and just decision.

Alfred Illingworth

Daisy Bank,

22nd November, 1887.

IRELAND BEFORE THE ACT OF UNION,
AND UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF AN
IRISH PARLIAMENT.

For many years the government of Ireland has been
regarded as England's greatest difficulty. The Colonies
and Dependencies have been either pacified or subdued,
but Ireland has continued to be restless, dissatisfied, and
to a great extent rebellious. And yet many of the greatest
statesmen of the age have spent their powers in trying to
establish peace and order in Ireland, and to reconcile her
to the legislative union with Great Britain. On the rock
of Irish affairs many popular English Governments have
been wrecked ; and many progressive measures urgently
needed by the English and Scottish peoples have been
prevented by it from passing into law. During late
years honest attempts have been made to pacify the
Irish people, and to rule Ireland in harmony with the
enlightened methods and spirit of nineteenth century
civilization. Some of these attempts have been deliber-
ately frustrated, and others have been weakened in their
passage through Parliament by partisans and men who
have held briefs in the interest of the privileged classes in

Ireland and England ; while some measures have signally
failed to accomplish the purpose for which they were
conceived. That there has been much unacquaintance
with the condition and needs of Ireland by those who
have been legislating for her, must be clear even to the
cursory reader of her history, and that there has been
some fatal principle operating in all the legislation will
be patent as we proceed with our study of the question.
Yet for more than fifty years various concessions have
marked the policy of England towards Ireland, and when
these concessions, often spoken of as favours, have failed
to satisfy the demands of the people of Ireland, and when
discontent has taken the form of disloyalty to the English
Government, and to the laws formulated at Westminster,
then coercion has been tried and the suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act, and the establishment of martial law
have smothered, but have not extinguished the flames of
disaffection.

Changes of Policy.

The alternations of policy between conciliation and
coercion have done much to produce the present abject
and destitute condition of Ireland, and to bring about the
diminution of her resources, the lessening of her popula-
tion, the stagnation of her trade, and the terrible veiled
war raging in her midst. Coercion, if resolutely persisted
in, would have settled the question of Irish submission to
English government, by the expatriation or else extermin-
ation of the people of Ireland. But it would have been
a brutal and inhuman settlement. It would have been
simply the adoption of the old-world methods of govern-
ment, and the assertion that Christianity had not exalted
the spirit and methods and intelligence of modern nations

to any higher level than that reached by the Israelites in
their dealings with the people of Canaan. Conciliation*
if it had been sincerely and earnestly continued, would, I
am convinced, have appealed to the nobler side of the
Irish people, and the generous, responsive nature of the
Celt wonld have burst into a white heat of glowing
gratitude and sparkling patriotism.

But men are asking — ** Have we not during the last
twenty years been attempting to treat the Irish people as
equals and brothers, and have they not been sullen and
discontented, repaying earnest sympathy with ingratitude,
and manifesting dissatisfaction with all the generous
attempts that have been made ? " I reply that we have
not treated them as equals, even while trying to remedy
many of their grievances. We have not, as Englishmen,
given them the same ungrudging trust and affection that
we have extended to our neighbours in Scotland and
Wales. We have treated them as aliens, or as people who
knew not their own needs, and who could not be trusted
with the remedies they demanded, lest with the use of the
remedy there should come a national strength that would
be injurious to ourselves. Further, a just restitution ought
not to be regarded as a concession, and we ought not to
expect effusive gratitude from a people to whom we are
rendering a tardy and incomplete justice. A complete
reparation for centuries of wrong-doing will alone entitle
us to the confidence and respect of the Irish race; and
while we are withholding from them some of their rights,
we cannot expect them to abound either with gratitude to
the English for the small benefits bestowed, or with
respect for the character of the national legislature that
has so long overshadowed and darkened the life of the
rish nation. To understand whether we are withholding

anything to which the Irish are entitled, it is necessary for
us to review their history, for in this way alone can we
obtain a just view of their present national character and
condition.

Why rake up past wrongs ?

It has been asked ** what has a list of ancient wrongs
to do with the modern aspects of the question ?" This —
that the present is the outcome of the past, and that
therefore, in the settlement of the present, the influence
of the past cannot be ignored. Politicians cannot be
allowed to cut oif and cast into oblivion a large portion of
history, in order that they may have an easy mind and a
free hand in dealing with this question. The long chain
of events cannot be separated just where men choose to
separate it. All the yesterdays of the world are gathered
into the to-day, and for a sound conclusion on Irish affairs
it is necessary that we shall have a clear knowledge of the
fountain-head of social discontent and national unrest,
The selfish policy of English Governments ; the misrule
and robbery of English lords and aristocrats, and the
spoliations of English monarchs must not be concealed,
while a nation is denounced and crushed by those who are
inheriting the fruits of crime, and theft, and inhumanity.

Mr. John Bright has asked why the ancient history
of Ireland should be referred to. It is so long since, if
not so far away, that it may be untrue — why rake up these
wrongs ? Let us not say a word of disrespect of one who
has done so much for the people of Ireland and England,
and if he does not agree with the policy of the Liberal,
let us express sorrow and regret, not resentment and
malice. But his great past services do not entitle him to
lecture the Liberal Party as though they were schoolboys

or dolts, and in referring to the past I find that I am
following the sage example of Mr. Bright, for in nearly all
his great public addresses, a reference to past misdeeds,
and a warning against the lineal successors of ancient
oppressors form a prominent part. But we may place by
the side of Mr. Bright' s protest, the opinion of men who
declare that the present hostility of Irishmen to the
English Government can only be properly understood by
noting their past disabilities and miseries. Take Mr.
Chaplin as a representative of high Toryism. In a
speech delivered in the House of Commons, he states : —
**The truth is that the English Parliament and the English
people are mainly responsible for those conditions of the
country, which have driven the people to the land, and
the land alone, for their support. It was not always so ;
there were other industries in Ireland in former days,
which flourished and flourished to a considerable extent,
until they first aroused, and were afterwards suppressed
by the selfish fears and commercial jealousy of England —
England who was alarmed at a rivalry and competition
that she dreaded at the hands and from the resources of
the Irish people." * * "I am convinced that it is in
the history of those cruel laws that lies the secret of that
fatal competition for the land in which — and it may well
be a just retribution upon us — the source of all the
troubles and all the difficulties that you have to deal with,
will be found."*

Mr. Chaplin is referring to ancient history, and he
declares that in his opinion, the troubles of Ireland spring
from the unsatisfactory condition of the Irish land system,
and that this system has been necessitated " mainly" by
the " English Parliament and the English people."

* Hansard, 261 Third Series, 831, 832. 851. Quoted by Professor Swft McNeill
— "English Interference with Irish Industries:"

Sir Chas. Russell, Attorney-General in Mr. Gladstone's
Government may be regarded as qualified to speak in the
name of Liberalism on this point, and as he is himself an
Irishman his words should have the greater weight. He
says, ''To understand the Irish land question of to-day it
is necessary to look back. I have no desire to recklessly
rake up bye-gones. I wish to heaven the Irish people
could forget the past. To them it is in the main a melan-
choly retrospect. But England ought not to forget the
past, until at least a great act of reparation has been
done. Even among men of some education in England
remarkable ignorance of the evil wrought in past times by
England towards Ireland prevails. There is indeed a
vague general expression that in very remote times
England when engaged in the endeavour to conquer
Ireland was guilty of cruelties, as most conquering nations
are, but that those things have done but very little
harm ; that their effects have ceased to tell, and that the
only purpose served by keeping alive their memory is to
irritate the temper of the Irish people and prompt them
to look back rather than to look forward. Emphatically I
say this is not so. The effects have not ceased. It is not
too much to say that Ireland and Irishmen of to-day are
such as English Government has made them."f

The late Mr. Henry Fawcett, Postmaster General,
was a true friend of the English workman and was in the
advanced band of the Radicals who have led the vanguard
of the people's progress, and he may be looked upon as an
exponent of Radicalism on this question. In a speech at
Shoreditch in 1881 he said " If people felt impatient with
the Irish, they should remember that the Irish were to a
great extent what the English had made them. If there

+ Hansard 261, Third Series 853. Quoted by Swift McNeill.

were some Irishmen now displaying bitter hostility to
England, it should be remembered that for a long time
Ireland had been treated as if she had been a hostile or
foreign country. A mass of vexatious restrictions were
imposed on her industry, and it was thought that if any
branch of Irish trade interfered with English profits,
that branch of Irish trade was immediately to be
discouraged."

Mr. GoLDWiN Smith may be taken as the representa-
tive of those Dissentient Liberals with whom Mr. Bright
is numbered, and who have taken upon themselves the
name of Unionists, and in his published writings he says
of Irish history: "It is the history of a half-subdued
dependency. Its annals are the weary annals of aggres-
sion on the one side, and of rebellion on the other ; of
aggression sometimes more, sometimes less cruel and
systematic; of rebellion sometimes more, sometimes less
violent and extensive, but of aggression and of rebellion
without end. Few are the points, few are the characters
of moral interest in such a story * * yet a knowledge
of these events is of the highest practical importance to
those who may be called upon to deal as rulers or land-
lords with the Irish people." And again, Mr. G. Smith
says : *• Statesmen are bound to be well acquainted with
the historical sources of the evil with which they have to
deal, especially when those evils are of such a nature as at
the first aspect to imply the depravity of a nation "

Lord DuFFERiN — an Irishman — a Peer, and one of
the ablest rulers and administrators in the nation says :
** Unless the past is first dealt with, it will be impossible
to come to a just settlement with regard to the future."

So much then for the objection that ancient history
has no place in the consideration of the Irish questions.

The Struggle Perpetual.

That there has been in England the great un-
acquaintance with Irish history to which reference has
been made must be admitted on all sides, and this has
been the main reason why people have asked the
questions — ** Why is Ireland not satisfied and con-
tented when so much time is spent in considering
her grievances? why are agrarian crimes and moon-
light raids not extinct ? and why is there in that
country a .deep - rooted opposition to the present
system of government ? " It is the old struggle
repeating itself. The Welsh legend says that the
buried dragons that represented England and Wales were
asleep, but that whenever they woke they renewed their
struggle and continued it until weariness and weakness
made them sleep again. So it has been in Ireland. An
awakening national life has made the people claim their
freedom, and a recognition of their right and ability
to govern themselves. This they have struggled for with
English Governments until coercion has stifled their cries,
buried their hopes, and robbed them of their power to
combine in the light of day, but as soon as the iron
grip has been taken from their throat, and weariness has
been thrown off, they have renewed the conflict. That
they have ever been dissatisfied is clear, and that they
have regarded the legislative union with Great Britain as a
sham of true union, and as the cause of their bitterest
miseries is proven by the utterances of their patriots.
This has been recognised by English politicians. In 1849,
Mr. Bright acknowledged it by saying " We have had
a union with Ulster, but there has been no union with the
whole people of Ireland."

Colonisation of Ireland.

Ireland is supposed to have been colonised from the
east — the cradle of the race — but much of her early
history can only be derived from legends and traditions,
many of which have but little authority to support them.
Fourteen centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ the
few aboriginal inhabitants, after a severe conflict are said
to have been overcome by Celts from Gaul or Spain, under
the leadership of a chief called Miletus. If tradition may
in this case be relied upon, this chieftain was a man of
mature judgment, for instead of trying ^ policy of exter-
mination, he attempted to secure a fusion of the ancient
race with his own followers that he might thereby build up
a united and strong nationality.

The Ancient System of Government.

The Clan system that flourished so long in Scotland
was established throughout the country, and between
the heads of the Septs or Clans, and the various
members of them, the utmost loyalty and confidence
existed. The land was not regarded as the property
of any individual, but was held as a solemn posses-
sion by the tribe, in the interests of each member of
it. All, even the sick and frail, had an equal right to
the soil, and even the portion set apart for the cattle of
the chief, was only held for life by him, and was transferred
at death, not to his children but to the new leader
appointed to that position by the tribe. This was recog-
nised until the reign of James L, when it was declared
obsolete by the arbitrary act of the King and his advisers
who regarded it as only a " scrambling possession."
Then private property in Irish land received the recog-
nition of English law, but Mr. Goldwin Smith has asked

" has property in land according to the English system,
presented itself to the Irish peasant, in the form of
security or independence ? '^' "^ Has it not rather
presented itself to him in the form of insecurity, degreda-
tion and despair."

Primogeniture was unknown among the Clans, and the
law or custom — called gavelkind— provided for the equal
distribution of a man's property among his sons. The
chieftianship was not hereditary, for the law of Tanistry
provided for the selection of the ablest relative of the
chief, and his appointment during the life of the chief to
the reversion of the office at death. The oldest surviving
member of a family was often appointed, but when he
betrayed some weakness of constitution or of character,
the symbol of power was entrusted to abler or worthier
hands.

The Judge who adjudicated in any disputes was called
a Brehon, and the laws that prevailed in Ireland were
called the Brehon Laws. Mr. Deane says: *' The only
property that was exclusively appropriated was the cattle.
Every man was rich and powerful according to the number
of his beasts." And again, he says: **The idea of paying
rent was foreign to this race of freeholders. Their chief
may indeed have required excessive help from them, may
even have used the measure of unjust and forcible expul-
sion on occasion, but there was no thought of eviction for
rent. To serve their chief was to them a matter of
natural, personal devotion ; he, in turn, would defend
them. * Spend me, and defend me,' was their maxim.
Even their very life would they spend with satisfaction
and pride for one whom they loved, often beyond their
own flesh and blood."

15
The Ancient Land System.
It is important that we should understand the
original land system of Ireland, even though it may
not be possible after the changes and developments
of life to revert to the original methods and ideas.
But a knowledge of the subject will enable us the
better to understand the struggles that have ensued
since the English monarch and his courtiers swept away
the ancient laws and usages. It is all the more necessary
that we shall have correct ideas on this question, inasmuch
as agriculture is almost the only industry in Ireland, and
the land question is still one of the great unsettled
problems of the day. Mr. Gladstone once said that the
old and standing evil of Ireland was "land hunger," which
he declared " must not be described as if it were merely
an infirmity of the people for it, and really means land
scarcity." But the land scarcity is in itself the result of
the spoliation and confiscation of English Governments
and English rulers. The land hunger of the people is
caused by their necessities, and by the limitations intro-
duced by privileged rulers acting in the interests of their
class, and compelling the people to turn to the land for
subsistence ; but what can be said for the land greediness
of rich men, whose wealth enables them to throw round
the land fetters which prevent the free and full cultivation
of the soil, and make it the choice preserve, not of human
beings, but of game. This is caused by selfishness and
inhumanity, and a regard for personal pleasures above the
interests of the poor and struggling tillers of the soil. Mr.
Bright once said : " that in discussing the Irish question
one fact must always be kept in mind, that is, that apart
from the land of Ireland, there are few if any means of
subsistence for the population, and consequently there has

always been for its possession an exceptional and unnatural
demand."* And yet this land has been in many cases kept
out of cultivation, and where it has been cultivated by the
tenant, and improved, the owner of the land has seized
and appropriated to himself the improvements, leaving the
tenant doubly burdened in consequence of his industry.
Mr. Bright, in the above quotation, uses the word " un-
natural." It is unnatural for people as a whole to demand
land where there are other industries, but it is natural for
men and women to desire to live, and when their very life
depends upon their obtaining soil to cultivate, it cannot
be unnatural for them to ask that it shall be so cheapened
as to enable the workers on it to obtain a livelihood ; and
it cannot be unnatural for those whose fathers have been
despoiled of the soil, to ask the children of the despoilers
to restore it to the children of the despoiled, under such
conditions that the benefits may be secured to the nation
at large.

What the Irish have been deprived of.
The Irish nation has been despoiled of Free Govern-
ment^ the Possession of the Land, and of Equal Religious
Rights. The last-named was restored to them by the Act
of Catholic Emancipation and the Disestablishment of the
Irish Church, but the fact remains that for centuries the
conscience of the people was coerced and stultified, and
they were treated as criminals because they refused to
allow their religious convictions to be shaped by State
decrees. But Free Government and the Land have been
and still are withheld from them, and although endeavours
have been made in late years to lessen the iniquity of the
land system, yet the infamous evictions which still blacken
and curse Irish life, and the enforcement of rigid land

' * Hansard. Quot«d by Swift McNeill. ~

penalties by the selfish hand of a landlordism that in
many cases has sold its soul to the usurers of Palestine
and England for wealth that has been frittered, show
the tyrannous character of the modern system. The whole
history of Ireland proves, that a union secured by bribery
and fraud, and a landlordism established by force of arms
and still bolstered up by soldiers and mounted police, with
all the armed might of England at their back, have taken
the place of tribal rights and a government in harmony
with national desires.

Ireland Christianized.

In the fifth century Ireland was missioned in the
interests of Christianity by a Celt from Gaul or else Wales,
a man whose name was Patricius, or as he is more fre-
quently called Patrick. In a short time the whole Island
is said to have been won for the Christian faith by the
influence of this wonderful and holy man. Prayer and
devoted service were the weapons he used, and the rough
chieftains caught the contagion of his simple earnestness
and were baptised as Christians. Armed with the same
weapons, his converts went forth to mission the Continent
of Europe, and to-day memorials of their toil and success
remain in many lands. History declares that Ireland then
became the foster-nurse of science, civilization, and
religion, and that at the Irish schools students from
Britain and Gaul {i.e., France) were regularly taught. The
island then won for itself the name of insula sanctorum,
and it was spoken of by potentates and scholars as the
"sacred isle" and as the "island of saints." Preachers
from Ireland found their way to the Court of Charle-
magne, to the Camp of Alfred the Great, and to the
rude villages of the Teutons ; and in Scandinavia,

i8,

they contended with the priests of Odin for the souls of
the wild warriors who fought and died under the banners
of the raven. Rosaries, chalices, crosiers, Celtic crowns
and harps, and illustrated Scriptures bear witness to the
advanced culture of the people.

Mr. GoLDWiN Smith shows that the Celtic nature has
always been regarded as a devotional one.* Reverence for
religious authority is deeply ingrained in the Celtic
nations. The warm and glowing imagination readily
soared upwards towards fellowship with the ideal spiritual
life of the Deity. The Irish were therefore likely to be
easily influenced by the fervid preaching of Patrick, and
their enthusiasm blossomed into flowers of holy and
heroic deeds.

GuizoT, in his history of France, says, '* Of all the
countries of the West, Ireland was for a long time that in
which alone learning was supported and thrown amid the
general overthrow of Europe."

MoNTALEMBERT declared that " Of all the nations
the Anglo-Saxons derived most profit from the Irish
Schools — Alfred the Great having received his education
at an Irish University." Whether the latter statement is
true or not may be questioned, but it is certain that Alfred
had a profound admiration for Irish scholarship, and that
when he establised his University at Oxford he appointed
one of the most famous Irish scholars — Johannes Scotus
Erigena — to preside over it. He also sanctioned the
dedication to himself of the treatise against Transubstan-
tiation, which was written by this renowned man. When
Europe was sunk in barbarism, and the darkness of a
loathsome and cruel idolatrous system brooded over the
nations, the Irish went with their lamps to dispel the

* See "Irish History and Irish Character."

gloom and to give to the nations higher and holier con-
ceptions of God and Truth and Righteousness. It was
from an Irish School that Virgilius went, before the time of
Copernicus, to teach the "true system of the heavens" and
to make the heads of Christendom rise in startled appre-
hension at his bold speculations ; and Irish scholarship
has its mementoes in lands far distant, where the bones
of heroic missionaries have been laid in the soil by the
hands of the men who received as a sacred trust the
truths taught by the departed saints.

Invasions of Ireland.

Then came the fierce Saxon pirates and the Danes
shouting with fervour their war songs, and in their mad
lust of conquest slaying priests and people. Monastries,
schools, and churches were burnt, many of the priests and
monks dying at the altar or in the cell. The Normans
followed in the track of their fierce progenitors, and the
soil of Ireland was deluged time after time with blood.
Yet she maintained her independence, and great chiefs
rose one after the other to throw off" the yoke of foreign
invasion. The Danes with all their fierce courage were
only able to obtain small tracts of land and towns on the
coasts, while the rest of the country continued under
Brehon Laws and Irish chieftainship. But Ireland, in the
struggle, lost her prosperity and her distinctive character
for learning, piety, and culture, and an age of eff'eminate
superstition intervened for a time. But even this supersti-
tion, which identified the miraculous with so many of the
acts of departed saints, was not the degrading, sensual
ignorance that associated itself with religion in many other
professedly Christian lands. The Irish Church still main-
tained its freedom, and to a great extent its simple fervour.

The English Invasion.
Previous to the English invasion, Ireland was divided
into five provinces, each of which had its separate ruler,
while one of them was called the Ard-righ or Chief Ring.
Frequent disputes occurred between these rulers, all of
them being more or less ambitious to attain the highest
honour, just as in the Saxon Heptarchy in England. The
rivalship of the chiefs led to numerous conflicts. The
disputes of the Irish princes first gave occasion to the
English warriors to visit Ireland. The King of Leinster
— Dermot McMurrough — abducted the wife of O'Rouarch,
one of the chiefs in Eastern Connaught, and the injured
husband sought redress from the King of Connaught —
Roderick — who was also Ard-righ. Roderick compelled
Dermot to restore the woman to her legitimate partner,
and deposed him from the position in which he had so
fully disgraced himself. Dermot fled to the court of
Henry II., King of England, and asked for aid in his
proposed attempt to regain his throne, undertaking to do
homage to the King if his dominions were restored.
Henry had long desired to conquer Ireland, as had all
his Norman ancestors. Efforts had been previously made
but they had been unsuccessful, and Ireland was still
possessed and governed by the Irish. Henry had prepared
fourteen years before for any opportunity that might
present itself, which would enable him to invade Ireland.
Believing in the power and authority of the Church of
Rome, he had sought and obtained from Pope Hadrian II.
a papal *' bull," or document authorising him to take
possession of the Island. The Pope at that time was
supposed to have the right of lordship over all islands,
and he exercised this right in the document by which he
transferred the governorship of the island from the five

princes, and their chieftains to Henry II. But who wa^
Pope Hadrian II. ? An Englishman, who had climbed to
the highest position in the Romish Church, and who
doubtless had a special love for his native land, and a
special hatred of the Irish Church, which had refused to
bow its neck to the yoke of Rome. This Pope had
originally been called Nicholas Breakspeare, and he is the
only Englishmen who has ever attained to the dignity of
a Pope, although others, notably Cardinal Wolsey, have
been only a little way removed from it. At the time when
King Henry II. obtained the Pope's consent to invade
Ireland, there was existing a trade in slaves, that was
fostered by the Danes who lived in the towns on the
coast. This slave trade had been carried on for years, and
had been partially suppressed by William the Conqueror
and Bishop Wulfstan. But in the subsequent reign it had
revived, and Henry wrote to the Pope pointing out this
fact and stating that his intention was not only to suppress
this trade, but also *' to enlarge the bounds of the Church,
to restrain the progress of vices, to correct the manners
of the people, to plant virtue among them, and to increase
the Christian religion." He promised that as soon as his
authority was paramount, he would ** subject the people to
laws, extirpate vicious customs, respect the rights of native
churches, and enforce the payment of Peter's pence, if the
Pope would sanction the undertaking."

But for fourteen years Henry had been unable to
carry out this project, and now that Dermot came to him,
he saw the golden opportunity for which he had been
waiting. A band of knights under Robert Fitzstephen,
son of the Constable of Cardigan, went to Ireland with
Dermot. They were soon followed by Pilchard of Clare —
commonly called Strongbow — Earl of Pembroke, and

when Dermot died a year after his return, Strongbow,
who had married Eva — Dermot's daughter — claimed the
throne of Leinster, and as Dublin had already been
captured by surprise, he set up his authority there.
Following the example of the Norman Conqueror in
England, Strongbow divided large portions of the land
that belonged to the Celts, among the chiefs and knights
who had aided him. As soon as this was done, he returned
to England to appease the jealousy of the King and to do
homage to him for the newly acquired power and posses-
sions. Henry II. now claimed to be acknowledged as
Suzerain or lord, not only over Strongbow but over his
chiefs and knights, as well as over the Irish who had not
yet succumbed to the power of Strongbow. His claim
over Strongbow and his knights was a just one according
to the feudal laws in vogue in England, but not according
to the Brehon laws that the Irish chiefs alone recognised ;
and though Strongbow acknowledged the authority of
Henry, the Irish leaders, with the King of Connaught at
their head, did not acknowledge it. The country was torn
by contending forces. Wherever Strongbow's power was
dominant, the Suzerainty of Henry was admitted, but out-
side the pale, ?>., the English part, the people clung to
their ancient princes and their original rights.

The King returned with Strongbow to Ireland, and
would probably have succeeded in stamping the seal of
his power over the whole of the island, had it not been
for the turbulent conduct of the Barons, who on the
murder of Archbishop Thomas a Becket, engaged in petty
conflicts at home. The visit of the king, therefore, served
but little purpose, and the king's youngest son, John, by
his rude insults in plucking the beards of the Irish chief-
tains, alienated many who would otherwise have given

their allegiance to the royalty of England. Sir John
Davies, who was Attorney -General in the reign of
James I., says : — " He (Henry H.) departed out of
Ireland without striking a blow, or building one castle,
or planting one garrison among the Irish ; neither left he
behind him one true subject more than those he found
there at his first coming over, which were only the English
adventurers." But the king in his visit showed his feudal
lords that he intended to demand the services from them
to which he was entitled, and they were compelled to
promise armed warriors to support him in his wars,
and De Lacy had to give to the king " the service of
fifty men."

The Transactions of the Pope and King.

Ireland was brought first under the lordship of the
English king by the Pope of Rome, and then her church
was brought under the dominion of the Church of Rome
by King Henry II. This was fair. Both parties profited
by the transaction, and the only sufi"erers were the Irish
people, whose consent had never been sought or obtained.
Previously, with the exception of the Christianised Danish
Churches on the coast, the Irish, like the Welsh, had
refused to bow down before the spiritual headship of the
Roman Pontiff. Ireland had her own native churches
that were independent of the Papal power. The Irish
Church was handed over to the Papacy by the arbitrary
act of Henry II., and Nemesis has followed in the track
of the grave injustice.

Archbishop Usher has shown that a religion not very
different from the Protestant Faith prevailed in Ireland
before the invasion of the English, and that it was the
assumption of the Pope to the lordship of the isles that

gave Henry a shadowy claim to his suzerainty in Ireland,
and that in return he laid the Irish Church at the feet of
the Papal power. For centuries the only title by which
the English monarch asserted his right to rule Ireland was
the " bull " of Pope Hadrian.

During the subsequent centuries the authority of the
English was extended, or as some doughty Irish chief
arose was contracted, and civil war with all its dread ex-
cesses raged from year to year. Invaders and invaded
were divided among themselves, and neither party seemed
of sufficient strength to strike a decisive blow.

Mr. Green says — " Had the Irish driven their invaders
into the sea, or the English succeeded in the complete
conquest of Ireland, the misery of its after history might
have been avoided. A struggle such as that of Scotland
under Bruce might have produced a spirit of patriotism
and national union which would have formed a people out
of the mass of warring clans. A conquest such as that of
England by the Normans, would have spread at any rate
the law, the order, the peace, and civilization of the con-
quering country over the length and breadth of the
conquered. Unhappy Ireland, while powerless to affect
its deliverance, was strong enough to hold its assailants
at bay. The country was broken into two halves whose
conflict has never ceased."^*

Theft of Land.
The English conquerors made desperate attempts to
secure land for themselves, and instead of endeavouring
to build up a united nationality, their policy was to exter-
minate the original holders of the soil. Civilization had
been spreading for 30 centuries, and had been leavened

* " Short History of the Enghsh People.''

and directed by magnates of the Christian church, who
were supposed to be acquainted with the spirit and princi-
ples of the teaching given on the Judean mount as well as
to be animated by them, and yet the English conquerors had
not the same high conception of true government as the
Miletians who, according to tradition, tried to assimilate
the first settlers with themselves, so that they might
together form a nation.

Sir John Da vies says : — " This then I note as a
great defect in the civil policy of the kingdom in that,
for the space of 350 years at least after the conquest first
attempted, the English laws were not communicated to
the Irish, nor the benefit of protection thereof allowed
unto them, though they earnestly desired and sought the
same. For as long as they were out of the protection of
the laws, so as every Englishman might oppress, spoil and
kill them without controlment, how was it possible that
they should be other than outlaws and enemies of the
Crown of England."

And again he writes : — *' Whereby it is manifest that
such as had the government of Ireland, under the Crown
of England, did intend to make a perpetual separation of
enmity between the English and the Irish."

Professor Blackie, with his usual terse wisdom,
says : — ** It cannot be denied that the blessings which
conquest brings with it when vigourously managed and
wisely used are lightly turned into a bane whenever the
power which has the force to conquer has not the wisdom
to administer ; of which unblissful lack of administrative
capacity and assimilative genius, the conquests of the
Turks in Europe, and of the English in Ireland, present a
most instructive example."

English Policy in Ireland.

It is evident that the policy pursued in Ireland from
the commencement of the English domination, was one
calculated to uproot the people from the soil, and to
sweep away all vestiges of their original rights. The
barons and governors tried for centuries to do in that land
what their sons have attempted to do in North America,
and at the Antipodes, viz., to supplant and to exterminate
the ancient settlers. Indians, Maories, and Irishmen,
have all suffered because there has been in the Anglo-
Saxon nature a wild and unsatisfied craving for land and
power.

Religious antipathy, greed, and ambition, have all
had their influence for evil in the land. Henry II. had
Ireland handed -over to him for a specific purpose, viz., "to
reform the people." But the reforms were miserable
farces, and the chief weapons used by the reformers were
confiscations and muuders. The plea has been raised that
the Irish nobles were turbulent and warlike, and fought
with each other. So were the barons of Scotland, whom
even Robert Bruce dared not leave to perform his vows in
the Holy Land, and so were the English lords, whose
feuds and bickerings reddened the land for centuries, and
like deadly nightshades, cast their poison on English life
during the reigns of the Plantagenets and the Tudors,
and did not cease to injure the nation even when the
strong hand of the Commons beat the power from their
grip on the fields of Naseby and Marston Moor.

Irish Petitions and their Rejection.

In 1278, the Irish petitioned Edward I. to allow them
permission to live under English law, and believing that
kings, as well as nobles, were open to bribes, they sent a

gift of 8000 marks to purchase the royal favour. But
though the king ordered Ufford, the Justiciary, to call
Parliament for the purpose, yet the barons by subterfuges
and evasions, thwarted the petition of Ireland, while at the
same time they approved of the king's retention of the
money.

In the reign of Edward III., another petition was
sent, but the barons who held the lands in Ireland again
resisted the claims of the Irish to live under the English
laws and constitution. They said, in the words of Sir
John Davies, ** it was best policie to hold them as aliens
and enemies, and prosecute them with a continual warre —
the troth is that those great English lords did to the
uttermost of their power crosse, and withstand the
enfranchisement of the Irish."

It is evident that the struggle to the Irish was one of
life and death, and while they were contending for veiy
existence, their oppressors were fighting for soil and spoil.
It was not to the interest of grasping barons to conciliate
the oppressed and make them loyal, but rather to prove
them traitors and rebels, so that they might be assailed
and robbed of lands, and homes, and life itself.

Absenteeism.

Even so far back as the reign of King John, the
system of absenteeism commenced to curse Ireland, and it
has continued to blight Irish life through the ages unto the
present time. The lords and knights returned to England
to enjoy amid the splendour of the Courts, the plunder
they had secured in Ireland. The evils of absenteeism,
and the expensive lives of the landowners of Ireland have
long pressed heavily on that country, and government by
middlemen and deputies has been one of its greatest

^^^Vo-^IBRA^^

■2%

disasters. Mr. Golclwin Smith has pointed out the evils
of absenteeism. He says, — *' The greatest evils of absen-
teeism are, first, that it withdraws from the Community its
upper class, who are the natural channels of civilizing
influences to the classes below them ; and secondly, that
it cuts off all personal relations between the individual
and his tenant, closes up the compassion of the landlord,
and exposes the tenant to a pressure as unfeeling and
relentless as that of a band of iron. It has also a general
though not an invariable tendency to prevent the improve-
ment of the land." How this evil developed is revealed
in later history, and in the time of Dean Swift to use his
own words, *'the old seats of the nobility and gentry are
all in ruins, and there are no new ones in their stead.'
The landowners were drawn to the frivolities and court
gaieties in London, taking care however, to exact through
their agents the full value of their tenants improvements,
.and by which they — the landowners — were enabled to
shine with an added lustre in the metropolis.

Those barons and knights who stayed on the estates
which they had won naturally began to take an interest in
the people around them, and after a time many of them
became assimilated with the native race. The rare beauty
for which the Irish-women have been renowned won the
hearts of their rulers, and many of them married Irish
wives, and had Irish nurses for their children. The chil-
dren naturally grew up to love Ireland, and to speak the
native tongue, and when in their turn they came to rule,
they re-established Irish customs, entertained the bards or
harpers, and were installed by popular desire as chiefs, the
people willingly giving to them similar affection and
loyalty to that which had been given to the leaders of old.
But the lords and knights at Court did not like the old

English, as they termed those who lived on the soil, and
as the courtiers were near the King's ear and could whis-
per into it, they took care to influence the King against
those who were more favourably disposed than they were,
to the ancient race.

The First Irish Parliaments.

In the year 1265, Simon-de-Montfort's Parliament
met at Westminster, and there were present, in addition to
the English representatives, burgesses and knights repre-
senting Irish counties and boroughs. This, however, does
not seem to have given satisfaction, for in the year 1295,
a distinct Irish Parliament may be seen to exist, and there
are Irish Statutes recorded for the year 13 10. But this
Parliament represented only the views of Irish settlers and
rulers, *' chiefly the latter."

Isaac Butt contended in one of his speeches, and
supported his contention by the testimony of able authori-
ties, that ''From the earliest introduction of the power of
the English kings into Ireland, the Irish who submitted
to the rule of those kings had a right to the same Parlia-
mentary constitution as that which England enjoyed," and
he further said, " The Irish Parliament had, like the
English Parliament, its hereditary House of Peers. Its
House of Commons was elected exactly like the English
House of Commons, by the freeholders of the counties,
and by cities and towns deriving their right to return
members from the charters of the kings. The freehold
franchise was the same in both, and the royal charters had
exactly the same efl"ect, and were construed and tried by
the same rules of law."

Mr. Flood declared in debate, that ** Three hundred
years before any colony in America had a name, Ireland

3°

had a Parliamentary constitution." It was unfortunate,
however, that this Parliamentary machinery, was controlled
and worked in the interests, not of the whole people, but
of the dominant minority composed of landowners and
nobles.

In 1366, during the reign of Edward III., the Statute
of Kilkenny was passed, which forbade the English to
form relations with the Irish under penalty of death. To
speak the native tongue, to use an Irish name, to adopt,
as the Statute puts it, " any guize or fashion " of the Irish
was to be punished by loss of land, but to commit the
graver crimes of marrying an Irish woman, to entrust
children to an Irish nurse, or to give them Irish Sponsors
at Baptism was high treason that only bloody could wash
out. No men of Irish blood were henceforth to be per-
mitted to reside in a walled town, and within the Pale, to
prevent the spiritual ascendancy of the natives, no Irish-
man was to be received as a novice in any monastry.

Military Occupation.

Leland in his history says that soldiers were
quartered in towns without any limit or payment, and that
the properties of the Irish, ** their lives, the chastity of
their families were all exposed to barbarians who sought
only to glut their brutal passions, and by their horrible
excesses they purchased the curse of God and man."

This declaration is supported by Hume the historian,
who states : — ** The small army which the English main-
tained in Ireland they never supplied regularly with pay,
and as no money could be levied from the island, which
possessed none, they gave the soldiers the privilege of
free quarters on the natives. Rapine and insolence in-
flamed the hatred which prevailed between the conquerors

and the conquered, and want of security among the Irish
introduced despair. For the English carried further their
ill-judged tyranny. Instead of inviting the Irish to adopt
the more civilized customs of their conquerors, they
even refused, though earnestly solicited, to communicate
to them the privileges of their laws and everywhere marked
them out as aliens and as enemies."

Sir John Davis says that this method of quartering
soldiers bred idleness and misery, " for when the husband-
man had laboured all the year, the soldier in one night
did consume the fruits of all his labour. Had he reason
then to manure the land for the next year ? "

The Reformation.

At the Reformation, Henry VIII. claimed to be King
of Ireland, and not simply Suzerain, and he further de-
manded to be acknowledged as Head of the Irish Church.
This was a startling demand, and was bitterly resented by
the Irish Priests and People. Henry II. had called upon
the people to acknowledge the authority of Rome, and
now his successor commanded them to throw off that
authority, and acknowledge not only his headship over the
land, but also over the church. Since the first English
invasion to the time of Henry VIII, the authority of the
Pale had not extended more than over a radius of 20 miles
from Dublin, and the King had not the same means of
enforcing his will in Ireland as he had in England. His
changes in England were congenial to many of the people
who looked to him for protection from the avarice and
spiritual despotism of the Church, but in Ireland the
Clergy had been the only protectors of the people from
the greed and tyranny of the governors, and enquiry and
conviction as well as dissatisfaction with the church had

not proceeded at the same rate of progress as in England.
The people had been harassed in the past because of their
Protestantism ; they were now assailed because of their
allegiance to the Pope. They could not understand how
the arbitrary will and mere pleasure of the king should
decide once again their religion ; nor could they realise
how the king could arrogate to himself a power which his
predecessors had so persistently claimed for the Pope,
whose authority had given them the land of Ireland.

Mr. Burke once said, **If the people are in error, to
inform them is not only fair but charitable ; to drive them,
to attempt to eradicate by violence, a wide spreading and
established religious opinion, is a strain of the most mani-
fest injustice."

Yet this was attempted in Ireland, and the result was,
that the people not understanding the reason of the change
and feeling ever a strong national antipathy to English
rule, were now plunged into the hideous depths of a violent
religious bigotry. The Church was despoiled of her
revenues, her altars were broken down, and a new order
of ministers was set up in opposition to the will and desire
of the most respected and saintly in the land, as well as
of the great bulk of native worshippers. Thus arose and
was fostered the religious antagonism that has produced
so terrible an entail of misery in more modern years, and
that has been perpetuated by constant acts of injustice on
the part of the governors and rulers in Ireland.

Suppressing Catholicism.

An Act of Supremacy was past in the year 1537, ^^^
was soon followed by the wholesale confiscation of Church
lands. During the short reign of Edward VI. this policy
was continued until Mary came to the throne, and there

is one thing very noticeable, and that is, that while in
England and the Continent, the enthronement of Catholic-
ism meant the burning of heretics, during Mary's reign,
no Protestant in Ireland suffered death for his opinions,
That has been the characteristic of Irish religion.
Ireland has often been a home for refugees fleeing from
persecution in England. In the year A.D. 300, the chris-
tians in Britain when assailed by the sanguinary persecution
of Diocletian found refuge in Ireland. In the 7th Century
scholars found an Asylum there when assailed by the
rampant barbarism that spread its pall of ignorance and
brutality over the European Continent. Martyrdom for
conscience and theological thought was certainly alien to
the spirit of Irish Catholics. In Henry II.'s time it was
said to an Irishman — " What is your church ? You have
not even a martyr in your calendar." To this he replied —
" You seem as if you could teach us how to make them."
But the tolerance of the Catholics during the reign of
Mary, was repaid with the most brutal severity when
Elizabeth ascended the throne, for if her lords did not use
the gibbet and the stake, they freely applied the still more
terrible weapons of starvation and wholesale massacre.
During Elizabeth's reign, strenuous efforts were made to
overpower the Catholic population, and to compel them
to accept the Protestant doctrines and practices, and the
result was disastrous to the English Government.

Mr. Froude says : — ** The English Government had
added largely to their difficulties by attempting to force
the Reformation upon Ireland while its political and
social condition were still unsettled." Again, when speak-
ing of the endeavours that were made to extinguish the
people by the '* Colonization scheme," he says : — ** It
cannot be said that England deserved to keep a country

which it mismanaged so disastrously." The Irish were not
to be blamed if they looked to the Pope, to Spain, to
France, to any friend in earth or heaven to deliver them
from a Power which discharged no single duty that rulers
owe to their subjects."

In another place he says : — " The suppression of the
Catholic Services, enforced wherever the English had
power, and hanging before the people as a calamity sure
to follow as the limits of that power were extended,
created a weight of animosity which no other measure
could have produced, and alone made the problem of
Irish administration hopelessly insoluble." Further on he
says : — *' Before the Government attempted to force a
religion upon them that had not a single honest advocate
in the whole nation, there was no incurable disloyalty.
If they, were left with their own lands, their own laws, and
their own creed, the chiefs were willing to acknowledge
the English Sovereign."

But the new gospel was supported by pillage and
bloodshed. Chiefs and leaders of the tribes were invited
to banquets and then put to death. Essex, the Queen's
favourite, showed his subordinates how to proceed by
inviting Sir Brian McPheJim O'Neil, .his wife and two
hundred followers to a banquet and then massacring them.
** Men were stripped naked and thrown alive into bogs.
The blind, feeble and sick, idiots and old persons were
killed without mercy. Women were forced into barns,
which were then set on fire, and those who tried to escape
were either shot or stabbed ; babies were whirled about
upon the points of spears, and women were hung upon
trees, whilst the babes at their breasts were strangled with
their mothers' hair."

I cannot proceed — the horrors are too sickening ; the
tales of misery are too harrowing to the human heart to
be further written out. And this was done in the sacred
name of religion, by men who were animated by the spirit
of the fiends of the bottomless abyss.

Mr. Froud sums up the matter very pertinently
when he says : — ** The English nation was shuddering
over the atrocities of the Duke of Alva. The children in
the nurseries were being inflamed to patriotic rage and
madness by tales of Spanish tyranny. Yet Alva's bloody
sword never touched the young, the defenceless, or those
whose sex even dogs can recognise and respect." But
the sword of religion did touch these persons in Ireland.
And not only was force exercised to slay the Irish, but
with the most fiendish determination their food supply was
destroyed. Year after year the crops were systematically
burnt, and English nobles wrote to their friends vaunting
their achievements in laying bare the productive soil
of Ireland.

Edmund Spencer, the author of the " Faerie Queen,'
says : — '* The people were brought to such wretchedness
as that any stony heart would have rued the same. Out
of every corner of the woods and glens they came, creep-
ing forth on their hands, for their legs would not bear
them ; they looked like anatomies of death, they spoke
like ghosts crying out for their graves ; they did eat the
dead carrions happy where they should find them, yea, and
one another soon after, in so much as the very carcases
they spared not to scrape out of their graves ; and if they
found a plot of water-cresses or shamrocks, there they
flocked as to a feast for the time, yet not able long to con-
tinue there withal ; so that in short space there were none
almost left, and a most populous and plentiful country

suddenly left void of man and beast ; yet sure in all that
war there perished not many by the sword, but all by the
extremity of famine."

Mr. GoLDWiN Smith says, '' The famine, even
supposing the people wasted their own country in
self-defence, was caused by the cruel war." But there is
abundant evidence to prove that the English and their
sympathisers were the pillagers. Mr. Deane says,
" Wherever the English went, they pillaged and laid
waste : corn and the fruits of the earth were consumed
by fire ; the implements of husbandry were destroyed
also, and if any man were found attempting to till his
field, or sow it, he was cut down by the sword."

Henry VIII., notwithstanding his severity and disre-
pute, was astute in many of the methods which he adopted
to conciliate the Irish. In his treatment of O'Neil and
O'Brien, he shewed the shrewdness of his mind, and won
many of the Irish to the side of English government.
He strove to secure the obedience of the people through
a wise regard paid to their chiefs, and thereby established
a new departure in the government of Ireland. Unfor-
tunately, in the succeeding reigns of the Tudors, this
policy was abandoned, and the Irish chiefs and their
followers were once more treated with disrespect. The
great fault, however, witlr Henry's reign was his attempt
to force the new faith on the people, and his studious
attempt to suppress the Celtic tradition of the people and
to make Ireland as England in manners, in law, and in
tongue. His regard for the chiefs could not fully atone
for his curt contempt for Irish customs. Henry wanted
to rule not by military or physical force, but by law, but
Mr. Green says that the only conception of law which
the king and his ministers had was that of English law.

"The customary law which prevailed without the Pale, the
native system of clan government, and common tenure of
land by the tribe, as well as the poetry and literature
which threw their lustre over the Irish tongue, were
either unknown to the English statesmen, or despised by
them as barbarous." To ignore the traditions and ancient
laws of a people is not the way to make them loyal and
contented, and we cannot be surprised that Henry's pur-
pose failed.

Queen Elizabeth's Policy.

Elizabeth had all her father's tenacity of purpose
without his serpentlike shrewdness. The unwisdom of
her methods in promulgating the Reformation made
Protestantism appear to the Irish as a badge of servitude
and slavery. The great forces, sympathy, tact, and a
loving provision for the needs of the people, that win the
hearts of men, were wanting, and in their place, severity,
compulsion, and unfeeling despotism reigned. Men
would not be driven to religion, nor have new views of
worship thrust like horseballs down their throats. The
fatuity and folly of the Queen may be seen in the fact that
when Roman Catholic services were suppressed, and the
people could not understand Protestant preaching in the
English tongue, nor could ther# be found clergymen in
Ireland to speak it, that then, instead of having the Irish
language acknowledged as the medium of teaching, the
Queen chose the Latin tongue as the instrument of
devotion and instruction. This species of wise arrange-
ment was enshrined in an Act of Parliament, 2 Eliz., cap. 13.

Land Confiscations.
During these reigns wholesale confiscations of land
were made, and heresy as well as rebellion was made a

pretext for taking possession of soil owned by the Irish
natives. Even Philip of Spain and Queen Mary, though
Catholics, carried out the traditional policy of confiscation.
Wide tracts in Leinster, comprising 985,000 acres, were
seized. When James I. ascended the throne, O'Neil and
Tyrconnell were declared traitors, and their lands were
divided among various companies in England and Scot-
land, and were colonised by men from these countries.
The entire population of six counties was dispossessed, and
the old chiefs and clans were compelled to retire to neigh-
bouring counties. Mr. Fkoude says : — " The confiscated
territory amounted to two millions of acres. Of these, a
million and a half, bog, forest, and mountain were restored
to the Irish, and the half million of fertile lands were
settled with families of Scottish and English Protestants."
There was much discontent at this. Colonists who had
never turned up a sod of land had bestowed upon them
the fruitful portions of it, while the bare, waste, unpro-
ductive parts were handed back to the people of Ireland,
to be tilled and improved by them, until a further conquest
should seize upon the soil freshly cultivated. This was
the Ulster experiment, which will be explained when we
consider the modern aspects of the land question. Sir
Arthur Chichester, smitten by the same rabid longing for
land as other governors had been, called the Parliament
together though it had not met for 27 years. To carry
his scheme, he created 57 Protestant representatives of
towns and counties. This Parliament was composed there-
fore of 125 Protestants and 10 1 Catholics. Previous to
this the Catholics must have had a majority, but this could
not be tolerated by the English rulers, and hence Sir
Arthur Chichester reformed the House and appropriated a
large portion of land. And yet, though he covered Protes-

tantism with the odium attached to injustice and robbery,
he wrote that he knew not " how this attachment to the
Catholic Faith was so deeply rooted in the hearts of the
Irish, unless it was that the very soil was infected, and the
very air tainted with Popery, for they obstinately prefer it
to all things else, to allegiance of their king, to respect for
his ministers, to the care of their own prosperity, and to
all their hopes and prospects."* He might have learned
that the religion for which a man makes sacrifices
becomes endeared to him, and that in proportion to the
greatness of the sacrifice is the strength of the affection.
And he might have known further that to associate the
new faith with iniquitous practices was the best means to
make it offensive in the sight of any people.

In 1369 a law was passed to compel men to reside
in Ireland, the Parliament declaring that the estates of
absentees who did not return within a given time should
be forfeited to the Crown. But the absentees found
means to avoid the penalty.

King Richard II. had viewed with clear eye the
conditions of the Irish people ; but though he spoke
strongly on the question, his fierce barons were too
turbulent for his meek spirit to control them, and the abuses
remained. After his visit to the country, the King said —
** In our land of Ireland, there are three kinds of people
— wild Irish (our enemies), Irish rebels, and obedient
English. To us and our Council it appears that the Irish
rebels have rebelled in consequence of the injustice and
grievances practised towards them, for which they have
been afforded no redress, and that, if not wisely treated
and given hope of grace, they will most likely ally them-
selves with our enemies." And yet, during the reigns of

* Godkin. 8q.

the wise Tudors and Stuarts, we may see the old policy of
injustice still pursued, and men compelled by the laws of
a conquering nation to become either slaves or rebels.

Rebellion and Revenge.

Charles I. sent Strafford over to govern the land and
further colonize it, and the Earl ruled with an iron hand
until his recall and execution. During this reign, rebellion
burst out and swelled into terrible dimensions. After the
dethronement of the King it still continued to spread.
The barbarities were almost unexampled in a land where
barbarous practices had flourished for centuries under the
fostering care of a foreign government. The land lay
weltering .in the gore of the people. Religious bigotry,
so long smouldering and burning in~ fitful fires to the eye,
but maintaining perpetual luridity in secret, now burst
out, and consumed in the flames of its passion the
opposing sects. The triumph of Independency and
Presbyterianism, under Pym and Cromwell, in England,
seemed to foreshadow to the Catholic Irish a raid upon
them. The civil wars had also relaxed the grip of English
governors, and now the Irish burst into defiant rebellion.
Massacre ran riot. Blood reeked from the deluged soil.
Then Cromwell came, and met cruelty by still greater
cruelty. Perhaps never since the time of Henry II. had
the natives a better prospect of throwing off" the foreign
yoke. A weak general or king must have gone down
before the rush of revolt. But Cromwell was immovable.
The marvellous resources of this determined man seemed
irresistible. He believed that to strike terror into the
minds of the Irish would be the means of preventing
future bloodshed and trouble. Then came, by his orders,
** the raid of Drogheda," and the whole city was given up

to death. For three years a pitiless war was waged. The
people sank down groaning and despairing. Six hundred
thousand people — men, women, and children — more than
one-third of the population, perished. Forty thousand
men fled from their country and joined the Spanish Army,
while thousands of others were banished and were sold as
slaves in the West Indies.

This rebellion, commencing in 1641, like others, had
been forced by the unwisdom of the English Government.
Charles L received payment for privileges, religious and
political, that the Irish desired, but his promises were
shadowy and unreal. Straff"ord believed in a " thorough "
policy, and one of his tenets was the suppression of all
religions except that w^hich was established by the English
Government. He and Archbishop Laud went hand in
hand in tyranny, and died for their crimes at the hands of
the exasperated Commons. But the Nonconformists who
claimed freedom of conscience for themselves, as well as
freedom of worship, were not prepared to grant these
sacred rights to Catholics. The Catholics knew not to
whom to turn. The King and his Cavaliers were against
them. The Puritans and their leaders gave them no hope.
The Roman Catholic officers were turned out of the army,
and the priests were imprisoned ; the services of their
religion were restricted or suppressed at the mere will of
English officers and governors. What could they do ?
They did what was alone open to them. They rebelled
and died. The lessons of barbarity taught by their con-
querors were learned by them, and in the flush of their
first triumph, they embued their hand in the blood of
Protestants. Twelve thousand at least, according to
trustworthy authorities were slain — many of them in cold
blood. Their deeds cannot be palliated or justified. But

the English had taught them, and were not slow to retaliate.
The rebellion commenced on October 22nd, 1841. In
December of the same year, the English House of Com-
mons passed a measure to deliberately destroy the Catholic
religion in Ireland. The Irish people became more
exasperated as they saw the life or death character of the
struggle. They saw it was a war of extermination, and
therefore fought and slew with the desperate madness of
despair. To them no quarter was shown. The wives and
children of those who went over to aid King Charles against
the Commons were murdered. In Scotland eighty were
drowned in one day for the *' crime of being married to or
the offspring of Irish soldiers." The Englishmen said :
**nits will be lice," and so the children were slain. One
officer, Sir William Cole, who had been engaged in the
cruel work of slaying the Irish and of destroying their
crops, summed up the deeds of his regiment, in which he
gloried, by saying — •*' Starved and famished of the vulgar
sort, whose goods were seized on by this regiment, 7,000."

Confiscation Repeated.

The country ,had peace given to it, but it was the
quiescence of despair, and " it left behind a fearful legacy
of hate." The Long Parliamsnt confiscated 2,500,000
acres, and offered them as security to adventurers who
could advance money to meet the cost of the war. Estates
were given to those who contributed as follows : —

1,000 acres in Ulster .. ;^2oo.

1,000 ,, ,, Connaught . . £300.

1,000 ,, „ Munster . . ;£^45o.

1,000 ,, „ Leinster .. /^6oo.
A new survey of the kingdom was carried out under the
direction of Sir William Petty (founder of the House of

Lansdowne), by whom the surface of the kingdom was
estimated at 10,500,000 acres. Of this, in the year 1641,
5,000,000 were in the possession of Catholics, 300,000
were the property of Churches and Colleges, 2,000.000
belonged to Protestant Settlers, and 3,000,000 were waste.
The 5,000,000 owned by Catholics were confiscated, with
the exception of 700,000 given in exchange in Clare and
Connaught, and 1,200,000 confirmed to innocent Papists.'*

No vestige of the Catholic religion was allowed to
exist ; Catholic lawyers and schoolmasters were silenced ;
and Mr. Deane says : — "All Ecclesiastics were slain like
the priests of Baal." Three bishops and three hundred
clergymen were thus slain. It is said that ** the hunting
to death of the priests became an exciting species of
chase." Mr. Deane further states : — " Into County Clare
and part of Connaught the people were driven like cattle,
and if in any mountainous recesses or caves a few peasants
were detected at mass, they were smoked out and shot. A
proclamation was issued that after March ist, 1654, all
Irish Catholics — men, women, and children — who should
be found in the kingdom might be killed by any person
who should meet them, without charge or trial."

Fortunately Henry Cromwell (the gifted son of the
Protector) and Fleetwood, the General, both endeavoured
to mitigate the severities, and for several years a better
state of government spread itself over the kingdom.

Mr. GoLDWiN Smith says: — **The peace of com-
plete submission reigned in Ireland. Law was regularly
administered, and the Protestant community at least pre-
sented a picture of prosperity. But it is difficult to believe
that the lot of the Irish Catholics can have been otherwise
than hard under the domination of those fierce and
fanatical children of the old covenant, who were dwelling

44-

in vineyards which they iiad not planted, and houses
which they had not built ; who ranked the religion of the
subdued race with idolatry, and who must have constantly
read in the expressive faces of the people intense hatred
mingled with cowering fear. To make Ireland like York-
shire is said to have been the Protector's object, and thus
as far as the nature of things permitted, his genius as a
ruler achieved. But the nature of things rendered it
impossible for him to do more than create a Yorkshire on
the surface, while an Ireland still lay alien and vindictive
below."

I commend Mr. Smith's words to those who are pur-
suing the same policy of government as Cromwell, and
who are complaining of the rebellious spirit of the Irish
people. The "nature of things " exists still, and is one
great element that must be considered in the modern
settlement of the question. Mr. Deane says : — " The
essential Irish demands were for freedom of religion ;
freedom of Parliament, including the repeal of Poyning's
Laws : for proper seminaries for the education of Roman
Catholics ; a general pardon ; that no person should sit in
the Irish Parliament unless possessed of Irish property ;
that the Irish Parliament should be independent of that of
England ; that no person should be governor for more
than three years, and that no governor should acquire land
while he was in office as governor." These do not seem
very hard demands, and yet they were persistently refused
by the Monarch and the English Government.

Charles II. returned to power, with his train of
licensed miscreants, on the deposition of Richard Crom-
well, and he commenced his government of Ireland by
confiscating many of the acres still remaining in the hands
of the Irish, 170,000 acres of which he assigned to his

brother James. During this reign a Test Act was passed, by
which no person could hold office, either civil or military,
without subscribing to a declaration against Transubstan-
tiation. As this was a fundamental doctrine of the Roman
Catholic Church, all Catholics were shut out of these
offices. The importation of Irish cattle into England was
also forbidden by law in this reign, because it robbed the
English farmer of high prices.

Mr. Prendergast says : — '* Eight millions of acres
were disposed of after the Cromwellian settlement by
Charles II. Two and a quarter millions were given to
Irish of English descent, or Irish declared innocent of
rebellion. To English courtiers and soldiers were given
four millions and a half. The rest the King reserved.'

James 11. repealed Poyning's Acts and the Act of
Settlement, and re-installed the Catholics in office, but he
clung tenaciously to the land, and confiscated the estates
of all absentees of the age of seventeen years and
upwards. Still the Catholics were faithful to him in his
wars with William of Orange, and on his defeat they were
again despoiled by the conqueror.

Poyning's Laws.

As the Poyning's laws are frequently referred to in
Irish history, it may be necessary to explain them. During
the reign of Henry VII., the Lord Deputy Poyning en-
deavoured to secure a closer connection between the
governing bodies of England and Ireland. In order to
do this, he drew up laws which were afterwards interpreted
to mean that the Irish Parliament was, in all legislative
matters, subordinate to the King and his Council, and
could not initiate legislation, nor carry it into law unless it
had received the sanction of the Privy Council, and had

first been considered by it. Swift McNeill says : — " In
1495, by an Act of the Irish Parliament known as Poy-
ning's Law, from the Lord Deputy, in whose administration
it was passed, amongst other provisions all the laws of
England, antecedent to that date are deemed good and
effectual in Ireland. This provision, which forms what
Mr. Hallam calls an epoch in Irish jurisprudence, fades
into insignificance in the light of the measure which gives
its peculiar importance to Poyning's Law. It was further
enacted that no Parliament should in future be holden in
Ireland, till the King's Lieutenant shall certify to the
King, under the great seal, the causes and considerations
and all such acts as it seems to them ought to be passed
thereon, and such be affirmed by the King and his Council,
and his license to hold a Parliament be obtained ; and
any Parliament holden contrary to this form and provision
should be deemed void."

In speaking of these Acts, Mr. Deane says : — ** The
one act reduced a long-standing grievance and wrong,
while the other inflicted a wrong which remained for
centuries. The former of these was to the effect that all
statutes made in England were established and made of
force in Ireland ; but this did not extend beyond the pale.
By the latter it was enacted that no Parliament should be
held in Ireland, except for causes and for the passing of
acts to be certified beforehand, and licensed by the King
and his Council. This limited the power of an Irish
Parliament to the mere vetoing of English proposals. It
could neither propose nor repeal a law, nor even alter
such as were offered for its consideration."

By this latter Act there was placed on the Irish legis-
lature a strong and inflexible curb. This was felt to be
intolerable, and was bitterly resented by the Irish. In the

reign of Queen Mary the Act was modified so that the
assent of the English Privy Council could be given while
the Irish Parliament was sitting, and not as claimed by
Poyning's Act, before it met. Though repealed by James
II., it was re-enacted by his successor.

In the reign of George I., by an Act of Parliament,
the English Houses of Parliament claimed the power of
legislating for Ireland. But Daniel O'Connell has
said : — " If that power so claimed had really existed, where
was the necessity of passing that statute, and while the
Act proclaims the slavery of Ireland, it admits the pre-
existence of freedom."

It is contended by Irish authorities that the Poyning's
Law was never intended *' to take away the right of the
Irish Parliament, but merely to prevent the governors of
Ireland from giving the royal assent to laws that might be
injurious to the King. It never gave to the English
Parliament the right to dominate and overshadow the
Irish Legislature."

Mr. Isaac Butt says, *** From the admitted depend-
ence of the Crown of Ireland upon that of England,
arose the claim of the English Parliament to legislate for
Ireland. Over all the colonies and dependencies of the
British Crown, the British Parliament had exercised the
right of legislation. Over Ireland they asserted the same
right. I need not tell you how fiercely it was contested,
and that it was finally abandoned in 1782."

Professor Swift McNeill declares that '* The Irish
Parliament, while admitting the dependence of the Irish
on the English Crown, repelled, without qualification, the
theory of the subordination of the Irish to the English
legislature."

(Quoted by Swift McNeil—" Irish Industries," pa^jj^ — — -«»,..^_^^

:T tTt -r-. .r^ .

Mr. Flood pointed out in his great speeches that the
Parliament that passed the Poynings Acts, and the Parlia-
ments of Queen Elizabeth's time had never regarded the
Acts as being intended to deprive the Irish Parliament of
its right to initate the legislation urgently needed in the
interests of the kingdom — that it was only considered to
be a popular law restraining evil governors, but "In no
wise restraining the power of either House of Parliament."
He showed that Lord Bacon, who wrote the history of
Henry VII., and particularly mentioned Poynings would
not have let so great a matter as a total inversion of the
Constitution pass by the accuracy of his penetrating
genius. He (Mr. Flood) said, " It is astonishing that
the law of Poynings should have received such a false and
vicious interpretation as it now bears. Do we understand
its meaning at the distance of almost three hundred years
better than the people in whose days it was passed, or they
who succeeded for a hundred years after ? By them it
was considered as a boon and a favour, but its operation
now destroys the Constitution of Ireland, that Constitution
which, growing side by side with the Constitution of
Britain, it was- formed to protect. But the law was not in
fault it was only the vile interpreter who was to blame, an
interpreter placed between the king and the people, a
monster unknown to the Constitution, whose office was to
stifle the voice of the people, and to prevent the king from
hearing, to render the people dumb, and the king deaf."

Mr. Swift McNeill shows how this law has been
used to deprive the people of Ireland of the benefits
intended by Poyning to be extended to Ireland. He
says, "The most casual glance at the history of the laws
of the Irish Constitution, will afl'ord ample evidence of
the persistent and reckless manner in which the provisions

of Poynings' Law were called in aid to pervert, mutilate,
suppress and persecute every measure extending the
benefits of the English Constitution to Ireland.

The Treaty of Limerick.

William III., when he marched his forces against
General Sarsfield and the Irish who remained faithful to
James II., found that he had to face no mean antagonist,
and pressed on every side by great difficulties, in order
that he might end the war and return to England in the
interests of administration and order, he entered into a treaty
at Limerick with General Sarsfield. This treaty provided
for an anmesty to all who would take the oath of allegiance
to the King ; in addition, all who desired to go to France
were to be conveyed thither ; all Catholics were to enjoy
the rights of their religion as in the days of Charles II.,
and the King and Queen pledged themselves to procure
further security for the Catholics when the Parliament met.
Subsequent history shows that this treaty was ruthlessly
and cruelly violated.

The Persecuting Code.

What has been fitly called *' the persecuting code,"
was established during the reign of William III. The
cruel civil war had thrown Protestants and Catholics
into two camps, and now the defeated were visited
with pains and penalties. Previously the Catholics
had enjoyed some measure, small as it was, of political
rights. They held the franchise, could elect members to
Parliament, and were themselves eligible for election ; but
now the Penal Code altered all this, and placed them in
a condition of political slavery. Nothing can palliate or
condone the establishment of this impious code, followed

as it was by what Mr. Burke called ** the ferocious legislation
of Queen Anne." It was the fruitful cause of much sorrow
and mischief, and we are to-day reaping a harvest of shame
and difficulty as the result of it.

Spies were set to work to find out plots and to dis-
cover excuse for the forfeiture of estates. A system of
mean and despisable chicanery was established, and a set
of men called ''discoverers" were appointed to search out
flaws in the titles of land held by Catholics. Leland says
that in the MSS. of Bishop Sterne it was found that ** in
the small county of Longford alone, twenty-five persons
of one Sept were all deprived of their estates, without
the least compensation or any means of subsistence
assigned to them."

Mr. GoLDWiN Smith asserts that the natives were
obliged to submit, *' For they had been vanquished in the
appeal to force. And if they were tempted to try their
right in the courts of law, they found judges who were
ministers of iniquity, and juries who gave their verdict in
cases where the Crown was a party, with the terrors of the
' Star Chamber hanging over their heads."

Leland states: — ''There are not wanting proofs of
the most iniquitous practices, of hardened cruelty, of vile
perjury, and scandalous subornation employed to despoil
the fair and unoff'ending proprietor of his inheritance."

A suitor for Court favours once said to the Duke of
Ormonde, " I have no friends but God and your Grace."
"Poor man," replied Ormonde, "you could not have two
friends who have less interest at Court."

And certainly it seems as though Justice and Mercy,
the characteristics of righteous and Divine government,
were cast contemptuously aside during the time when
William IIL and his Council legislated for Ireland.

Again the land was re-settled. Lord Clare, in one
of his speeches, referred to this period, and said : — *• It is
a very curious and important speculation to look back to
the forfeitures of Ireland incurred in the last century.
The superficial contents of the island are calculated at
11,042,682 acres. Let us now examine the state of the
forfeitures : —

In the reign of James I. the whole of
the province of Ulster was confis-
cated, viz., 2,836,837 acres.

Set out by the Court of Claims at

the Restoration 7,800,000 ,,

Forfeitures of 1688 .. .. ..1,060,792 ,,

So that the whole of your Island has been confiscated

with the exception of the estates of five or six families of

English blood, and no inconsiderable portion of the island

has been confiscated twice or perhaps thrice in the course

of a century.;"

Crippling of Trade and Commerce.

Irish manufactures were also crippled by an enforced
protection, and Mr. Froude says : — ** Ireland was regarded
as a colony to be administered not for her own benefit, but
for the convenience of the mother country."

Until the reign of Charles II. England placed no
restrictions on Irish commerce or manufactures. Lord
North says: — ''Before the Restoration the Irish enjoyed
every commercial advantage in common with England."

•*In 1495," Hutchinson says, "the English com-
mercial system and the Irish, so far as it depended on
English Statute Law, was the same, and before this period,
so far as it depended on the Common Law, and Magna
Charta was the same."*

* " Commercial Restraints,'' page 169. Quoted by Swift McNeill.

A law was also passed prohibiting not only the
importation of cattle to England, but also of butter and
cheese. Ireland was also forbidden to receive from the
English plantations, Sugar, Tobacco, Cotton, Wool, Indigo,
Ginger, and wood for dyeing purposes. The result was
that cattle became a drug in the Irish markets, and horses
that were sold for 30/- now fetched only i/-., and were
sold as dog's meat, and beeves that sold for 30/- now
only realised 10/-.*

The agriculturalists in great numbers now turned to
manufacturing, but again the Government stepped in, and
in 1660 and 1697 the Irish woollen goods were stopped
from obtaining entrance into England. They were then
forbidden to export their goods to foreign markets "here-
tofore supplied from England," and all *' export of wool
and woollen goods from Ireland was prohibited under the
forfeiture of goods and ship and a penalty of ^500 for
every offence."

They had been permitted to manufacture flax and
hemp into goods, but in 1750 they had so developed their
trade that their English rivals succeeded in securing from
the Government the imposition of heavy taxes on the
import of sail cloth made of Irish hemp into England.
The fact was that the English competitors were being
beaten out of the market, and the Government were com-
pelled to furnish the navy with sails made by the Irish.

The manufacture of glass was next crippled, and Irish
cotton goods were subjected to an import duty of twenty-
five per cent., and a statute law of George I. afterwards
enacted penalties on the wearing of such manufactures in
Great Britain unless they had been made there.

* Swift McNeill — "Irish Industries," page 23.

Irish beer and malt, hats, gunpowder, coals, bar-iron,
iron-ware, &c., were also subjected to restrictions, until at
last the fishermen of Folkestone and Alderborough sent
petitions complaining that the herrings caught at Water-
ford and Wexford were sent to their markets, and therefore
by reducing the prices they would otherwise have secured,
interfered with their prosperity. But the Parliament
decided that it must draw the line somewhere, and to
the dismay and disgust of the petitioners it drew it at
Irish herrings.

Dean Swift wrote: — ''Ireland is the only kingdom
I ever heard or read of in ancient or modern story which
was denied the liberty of exporting their native com-
modities and manufactures wherever they pleased."
Everything that was made in Ireland, or was reared on
Irish soil, seemed placed under the ban, and perhaps the
only reason why the Parliament refused to tax the herrings
was the difficulty and expense that would have been
involved in proving that they had been reared in Irish
waters.

Mr. Froude says : — " England governed Ireland for
what she deemed her own interest, making her calculation
on the gross balance of her trade ledgers, and leaving her
moral obligations to accumulate, as if right and wrong
had been blotted out of the statute book of the universe."

Lord DuFFERiN observes: — "One by one each of our
nascent industries was either strangled in its birth or
handed over gagged and bound to the jealous custody of
the rival interest of England, until at last every fountain
of wealth was hermetically sealed, and even the traditions of
commercial enterprise have perished through desuetude."

Mr. Lecky says : — " No country ever exercised a
more complete control over the destinies of another than

did England over those of Ireland for three-quarters of a
century after the Revolution. * * * The commercial
legislation which ruined Irish industry, the confiscation of
Irish land which demoralised and impoverished the nation,
were all directly due to the English Government and the
English Parliament."

And Mr. Froude again declares that " if the high
persons at the head of the British Empire had deliberately
considered by what means they could condemn Ireland to
remain the scandal of their rule, they could have chosen
no measures better suited to their end than those which
they pursued unrelentingly through three-quarters of a
century."

Richard Cobden, with the rare insight ever displayed
by him, said in 1835: — ''There can be no doubt that
England has during the last two centuries, by discouraging
the commerce of Ireland — thus striking at the very root
of civilization — rendered herself responsible for much of
the barbarism that at the present day afflicts it. However
much the conduct of England towards the sister island
in this particular may have been dwelt upon for party
purposes, it is so bad as scarcely to admit of exaggeration."

Well might John Bright, yet under the influence of
Mr. Cobden's spirit and fellowship, say : — " When the
Irish peasant asks for food, and freedom, and blessing, his
eye follows the setting sun ; the aspirations of his heart
reach beyond the wide Atlantic, and in spirit he grasps
hands with the great Republic of the West."

Dr. Spence Watson writes in the Newcastle Leader-.—

We had destroyed her cattle trade, and her trade in dairy pro-
duce, but her grazing lands were still free, and her farmers had access
to European ports (she was nearer than Great Britain to the west

coast of France, Spain, and Portugal and the Mediterranean ports),
and found a ready market for their wool, which was accounted the
best in Europe. I have read that fleece wool, which could be
bought in Ireland at fivepence per pound, brought half-a-crown per
pound in France. But in the first year of Charles II. 's reign (known
to law as the twelfth), this trade in wool was seriously interfered
with. By the 12 Car. II., c. 32, it was decreed that wool should
not be exported from Ireland to any country but England, and six
Irish ports alone were allowed to export it, and seven English ports
to receive it. But even yet in her manufactures there was a ray of
hope for the trade of Ireland. Forbidden to sell her raw wool, she
began to manufacture it, or, rather, her woollen industries, which
had been steadily growing, received a great impetus. From the
Low Countries, as well as from England and Scotland, manufac-
turers settled in Ireland, and everywhere was there evidence that at
last the way to success in peaceful industry had really been attained.
As early as 1641 there were not fewer than 30,000 woollen workers
and their wives in Ireland. And then England again grew frightened.
Her manufacturing supremacy was threatened. Her helot dared to
become her rival in one branch of business. In 1696 Ireland was
forbidden to trade with the colonies at all, and in 1699 an Act was
passed to prohibit the exportation of woollen goods from Ireland to
any country whatever, and a noble and thriving industry was
deliberately destroyed ; thousands of manufacturers emigrated to
the Continent, and so many workers left the Western and Southern
districts of Ireland for America that they were almost deserted.
Everywhere manufacture was crushed. Land alone remained.

Is this not a terrible story ? Does it not throw light upon the
unfortunate position which what we now mockingly call our sister
country holds in this matter of manufacture ? Trade depends
greatly on confidence, and confidence is a plant of slow growth.
The great manufacturing nations have become such through their
geographical position, through their superior natural resources, and
through the gradual development and patient formation of the
industrial character in their people. Ireland had the position ; we
refused to allow her to take advantage of it. She had the natural
resources ; we made them worthless. She began the formation of
industrial habits in her people ; we ruthlessly stopped the process.
We drove the Irish people on to the land at the very time that we
forbade them to hold it legally. We made them serfs, and this day
we feel in every phase and point of the Irish question the natural
effect of mischievous commercial legislation of two centuries ago.

Ireland Depopulated.

As a result of this, emigration went on in a continual
flood. Mr. Lecky observes : — " One of the most obvious
consequences was that, for the space of about a century,
Ireland underwent a steady process of depletion, most men
of energy, talent, or character, being driven from her
shores."

The Protestant population as well as the Catholic
suffered from these measures. Indeed, as they were
renowned for their trading propensities, their suffer-
ing was the more severe. The whole country groaned
under the twofold penalties of penal laws and commercia
restrictions.

Mr. Lecky again remarks : — *' If the ambition of an
Irishman lay in the paths of manufacture and commerce,
he was almost compelled to emigrate, for commercial
enterprise had been deliberately crushed."

Is there any wonder that the law was looked upon as
an instrument of evil and oppression, and that centuries of
injustice have made the people hate the law, which, had it
protected them they would have loved.

"Twenty thousand Puritans left Ulster on the de-
struction of the woollen trade."^*

** Until the spell of tyranny was broken in 1782, when
Ireland won back her own free Parliament, annual ship-
loads of families poured themselves out from Belfast and
Londonderry. The resentment they carried with them
continued to burn in their new homes ; and in the war of
Independence, England had no fiercer enemies than the
great-grandsons of the Presbyterians who had held Ulster
against Tyrconnell."

* Mr. Froude.

The woollen manufacturers, when they were sup-
pressed, employed 12,000 Protestants in Dublin, and
30,000 in other parts. This was a large percentage of the
population, which only numbered a little over two millions.
Many of them went to France and the northern parts of
Spain, and set up there a rival trade to the English one,
and in 1805 it was stated by Mr. Newenham, that for fifty
years the average annual emigration to America and the
West Indies had been 4000, and that at least 200,000 had
emigrated to the British Plantations.

Between 1691 and 1745 as many as 450,000 Irishmen
died in the service of France alone, and a number not far
short of this had passed through the armies of Spain,
while it is almost impossible to tell the exact number of
those to whom " Ireland gave birth and the Gallic land a
grave."

The Consequence of Injustice.

The Hon. Luke Gardiner, in 1 784, in the Irish House
of Commons, declared that as a result of the restrictions,
not only had England lost a principal protection of her
woollen trade, but "that the large number of Irish in the
American army had decided its victories, and that there-
fore America had been detached from England chiefly by
the force of Irish emigrants driven from their country by
iniquitous laws."

At the death of William III., less than one-seventh
of the owners of the soil were Roman Catholics, though
they were the great majority of the nation. Upon these,
in addition to the commercial restrictions, there rested the
terrible penal laws. Notwithstanding that the vast pre-
ponderance of the inhabitants were Roman Catholics,
the English Government by statute law placed all the
parliamentary and political power in the hands of the few

Protestants. The result was, that now more than ever,
Protestantism became associated with tyranny, and in the
opinion of many of the inhabitants of Ireland, it still bears
the stigma. Political power alone kept up the State
Church, against the desires and views of the vast majority
of the population. Mr. Goldwin Smith says that it
"became necessarily the servile instrument" of that
power, and taught the lesson to the ages that ''Christianity
cannot be propagated through unchristian institutions, and
that the State Church of a dominant minority is an insti-
tution which, being unjust, must be unchristian."

The Penal Laws.

The law excluded Catholics from the army and navy,
from corporations, the magistracy, the bench and the bar,
from grand juries, and vestries. They could not be
sheriffs, gamekeepers, or constables. They were forbidden
to own any firearms under pain of fine, imprisonment,
whip, and pillory. They could not own a horse worth
more than five pounds, and any Protestant could compel
them to sell any horse they possessed for that sum. There
was no education for their children except at Protestant
schools. They had no university ; could not teach a
school, nor send their children on the continent to be
educated. A Catholic could not be the guardian of his
own child. Mr. Goldwin Smith remarks : — " It (the law)
denied to the persecuted sect the power of educating their
children at home, and at the same time, with an almost
maniacal cruelty, it prohibited them from seeking educa-
tion abroad."

*They were not allowed to buy land, or inherit it, or
receive it as a gift from Protestants. They could not hold

* Mr. Froude—" English in Ireland." Mr. Lecky's History of i8th Century.

life annuities or leases for more than thirty-one years. If
a Catholic purchased an estate of a Protestant, the first
Protestant who informed the authorities of the fact became
the owner of the estate, so that there were plenty of people
on the look out. The eldest son of a Catholic, if he
assumed a profession of Protestantism, became heir-at-law
of the whole estate of his father, who was thereby reduced
to the position of a life-tenant. A wife who left the
Catholic Church and became a Protestant, was immeditely
freed from her husband's control, and was assigned a
portion of her husband's property that he could never
afterwards touch. A Catholic could not be the guardian
of a child of any deceased relative or friend, so that all
Catholic orphans were brought up as Protestants. All
Catholic Priests had to be registered, and it was a crime
for an unregistered priest to celebrate a service in any way.
" Any priest making a convert to Roman Catholicism was
punished. There were rewards for the discovery of un-
licensed priests, and no Catholic bishops were allowed
in Ireland under a penalty of being hung, drawn, and
quartered." A salary of £$o per annum was guaranteed
to any priest who would abjure his faith.

"Pilgrims to holy places were to be fined or whipped."
•' Catholic heirs of a Catholic must share the land equally
between them as they became subject to the law of Gavel-
kind, and even then they must conform within six months
or the lands descended to the next Protestant heir."

Mr. GoLDWiN Smith says : — ** In the case of alleged
offences against certain of the penal laws, the first prin-
ciples of criminal justice were deliberately and ostentatiously
set aside by removing the burden of proof from the accuser,
and casting it on the accused." This is still being aimed
at, as witness the charges of the Times newspaper against

the Parnellites, where the burden of proof was ruthlessly
laid upon the Irish party, and as seen in the Government
support of Mr. Lewis, a landlord, upon whose unsupported
evidence, in spite of the advice of the resident magistrate,
and the testimonies of the people to his previous good
behaviour, Father Fahy was sent to prison.

From the Bench, Lord Chancellor Bowes and Chief
Justice Robinson laid it down as a declaration of law,
viz. : — " That the law did not suppose any such person to
exist as a Roman Catholic ; and Dopping, the Protestant
Bishop of Meath, preached from the pulpit the infamous
doctrine that Protestants are ** not bound to keep faith
with Catholics." It is no excuse to say that Catholic
teachers taught a similar doctrine in relation to Protestants,
for if Protestantism is to prove itself a higher form of faith,
it must show its claim to this position, by the superiority
of its moral teaching, and the increased elevation of its
spirit and life.

Edmund Burke denounced the Penal Code for what
he called its " vicious perfection." He might well do so,
when he read that any marriage between a Protestant and
a Catholic was null and void, and could, at any time here-
after be annulled, so that though twenty years before, a
Catholic woman had been led into wedlock by a Protestant
man, he could now forsake her, and make his children
illegitimate.

Mr. Burke says : — *' It was a complete system full of
coherence and consistency, as well fitted for the oppres-
sion, imprisonment and degradation of a people, and the
debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever
proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man."

And these laws were not only directed against two-
thirds of the nation that were Catholic, but many of

them were also aimed at Nonconformist Protestants.
The Protestants were divided into two halves. The
Episcopalians enjoyed the protection of the State, and
were buttressed by the military and naval power of England,
but the Presbyterians were excluded from Parliament,
corporations and public offices ; marriages by their minis-
ters were dubbed illegal, and the Presbyterians were forced
by these laws out of Ireland ; and, Mr. Grattan says,
** what we trampled on in Ireland, stung us in America."

In a number of towns Catholics were cast out, and in
the town of Bandon, the people were so proud of their
exclusive Protestantism, that Dean Swift suggested as an
inscription for the town gates : —
" Jew, Turk, or Atheist
May enter here, but not a Papist."
But the people, though willing to accept this, did not
appreciate the addition made by the Dean's Catholic
servant : —

" The man who wrote these lines spoke well,
The same are written on the gates of hell."

Dean Swift wrote satire after satire in denunciation
of this system, of firm government, "and ironically advised
a clergyman, whose church was in a tumble-down state,
to give it to the Catholics, and when they had repaired it
to take it back again. He further issued, with a fluency
of satire, what he called a "Modest Proposal,"— viz.: "That
the children of the Irish peasantry should be reared for
food, and that the plumpest and fattest should be reserved
for the tables of the landlords, who, as they had already
devoured the substance of the people, had the best right
to dispose of the flesh of the children of the people."

Dean Swift did much to solidify and direct the national
life of Ireland. When King George I. gave the right and

profit of coining copper for Ireland to his German mistress,
the Dean poured out his wrath and indignation in a flood
of molten invective and argument, and he roused the
national life until the King had to withdraw his ill-omened
gift. The Dean asserted that Ireland *' depended on
England in no other sense than that in which England
depended on Ireland ; that government without the con-
sent of the governed was the very essence of slavery ;
and that, by the laws of God, of nature, of nations, and of
their own country, they were, and ought to be, as free a
people as their brethren in England."

Persecution failed to crush religious belief, and the
men who suffered cherished their faith the more fully.
The Catholic Church took firmer hold of the imagination
and life of the people, and this fatal policy of repression,
while it crushed the national liberties of the people, made
them estimate more highly the spiritual liberty that in
their hearts they realised.

Grattan's Parliament.

During the reign of George ILL, Henry Grattan rose
to prominence, and under his leadership the Irish people
re-asserted the independence of Parliament, and their own
right to initiate and make the laws necessary for the
regulation of Irish affairs. In this he was supported by
the great Whig leader, the founder of modern Liberalism,
Charles James Fox. Mr. Fox, in the English House of
Commons upheld the demands of the Irish, and did much
to avert a strife between the the two countries.

In the year 1775, the Catholics were allowed to take
the oath of allegiance, and after three-quarters of a century
were recognised as fellow-subjects with the class whose

representatives made the laws. This was the first result
of the struggles for American Independence. In 1778,
the Penal Code was further mitigated, so as to allow
Catholic leaseholders to acquire leases for 999 years or
five lives. The Act of Queen Anne's reign, which provided
that if a child became a Protestant he should obtain his
father's property, was repealed. Other measures followed.
Then at the instigation of the Irish Parliament, the export of
woollen goods was allowed, and a request for liberty to
trade with the American and West Indian Colonies was
sent to the English Parliament. Free Trade between
England and Ireland was next claimed. The influence of
the Americans was being felt more and more.

Then Mr. Grattan proposed his famous resolutions,
viz.: —

1. ''That the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland

are the only powers competent to enact laws to
bind Ireland."

2. "That the Crown of Ireland is and ought to be

inseparately annexed to the Crown of England."

3. "That Great Britain and Ireland are inseparately

united under one Sovereign, and under common

and indissoluble ties of interest, loyalty, and

freedom."

Where is the Separatist policy here ? Yet those who

accept and adopt the policy of Mr. Grattan are called

Separatists.

On February 15th, 1782, the Protestant Parliament
refused to pass these resolutions.

Dr. Spence Watson says : — " But these moderate
resolutions would have repealed Poynings' famous law,
and the Act of 1720, which confirmed that law, and they
were rejected. Other attempts to obtain legislative

independence for Ireland were alike unsuccessful, and
in February, 1782, the famous Convention of Dungannon
was held. And who were the men attending it ? Why,
the Protestant leaders of the Ulster Volunteers, and they
it was who, after long and earnest debate, resolved that
the claim of any body of men other than the King, Lords,
and Commons of Ireland to make laws to bind that
kingdom was unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance.
But they went further than this, those Ulster men, a
century ago ; they resolved again ' That we hold the right
of private judgment in matters of religion, to be equally
sacred in others as in ourselves ; that we rejoice in the
relaxation of the penal laws against our Roman Catholic
fellow-subjects ; and that we conceive the measure to be
fraught with the happiest consequences to the union and
prosperity of the inhabitants of Ireland.' This Con-
vention it was which settled that Ireland should be
independent. Grattan again moved and lost his Declara-
tion of Independence, but he had not long to wait, for, at
the third time of asking, in April of that very year, he
carried the day, and the Parliament of Ireland (such as it
was) was free and independent."

On the 17th of May, Lord Shelburne in the House of
Lords, and Mr. Fox in the Commons, moved two resolu-
tions, viz.: —

1. "That it is the opinion of this House that the Act

of the 6th George I., entitled an Act for the
better securing the dependency of Great Britain,
' ought to be repealed.' "

2. "That it is the opinion of this House that it is

indispensable to the interests and happiness of
both kingdoms that the connection between them
should be established by mutual consent upon a

solid and permanent footing, and that an humble
address should be presented to His Majesty that
His Majesty would be graciously pleased to take
such measures as His Majesty in His royal
wisdom should think most conducive to that
important end."
George HI. and his ministers had just lost America to
the English Crown by their insane measures of repression
and their unwise restrictions and impositions, and yielding
to the force of circumstances rather than to the dictates of
right, they were now induced to try and save Ireland to the
Crown by granting to her Parliamentary freedom. The
required acts were soon passed, and while the Iiish Parlia-
ment felt that it was again free, the Irish people rejoiced
that their national claims were once more recognised.
What had been refused to justice was yielded to fear.
While England had power and a free hand, she dragged
the Irish nation a captive at her chariot wheels. But now
England was embroiled in , foreign wars. The navies of
the world were marshalled against her. Her wars in
America, India, and Spain, where she had to meet not
only the native forces of the countries, but also the men
whom her unjust laws had driven into exile, compelled her
to withdraw her military forces from Ireland, and leave the
people there to arrange for their own defence. This was
soon done. Volunteers poured in to swell the ranks of
defenders until from the 40,000 who were immediately
enrolled they swelled to the number of 80,000. These were
confined to Protestants, but the Catholics were permitted
to send contributions, and nobly did they aid by their money
and sympathy in the formation of this Volunteer Army.
Four years after, the Convention of the People, aided by
the Volunteers at Dungannon, demanded the enfranchise-

ment of the Irish Parliament, and as the armies of England
were otherwise engaged, or were either wearied or dimin-
ished by the long foreign strife, the English Government
consented to the establishment of Grattan's Parliament.
" What had been denied to justice was granted to fear."

Grattan said: — "Ireland's progress was from injuries
to arms, and from arms to liberty."

Mr. ScRUTON says : — " What England had refused to
reason she gave to fear, and the armed volunteers obtained
from England what eloquence in Parliament had not been
able to do. When first the removal of restrictions on
Irish trade was suggested, every town in England went
mad, Burke was turned out of his seat at Bristol for even
suggesting that there was anything in the Irish demands.
It was said at the time that a * foreign invasion could
scarcely have created a greater panic' But the Protestants
and Catholics in Ireland united in their demands. Grattan,
himself an Irish Protestant, said, 'The Irish Protestant
could never be free till the Irish Catholic had ceased to be
a slave,' and he asked his Protestant brethren the question,
* Are we to be a Protestant settlement, or an Irish nation?'
England was at that time engaged in a war with France,
and, owing to the demand for troops for the French and
American wars, she had none to spare for Ireland. The
Protestants got leave to volunteer and to arm, and the
Protestants of Ulster — 'Loyal Ulster' — were the foremost
in arming. These volunteers, as they were called, once
armed, rapidly grew in numbers to fifty thousand men, and
they used their arms and the weakness of the English
Government to demand by armed force what England had
refused to eloquence. The Dublin Volunteers paraded the
streets of Dublin with two cannons, labelled ' Free Trade,
pr This,' and under this pressure in 1779-80 Lord North

gave the Irish partial Free Trade. Then the Irish Parlia-
ment refused to vote supplies to England. As the member
who moved that resolution said: 'England has sown her
laws in dragons' teeth ; they have sprung up in armed
men.' They had risen now to eighty thousand, and the
Lord Lieutenant was obliged to confess that he had no
authority in Ireland. In 1781 the English army, under
Lord Cornwallis, surrendered to the insurgents in America,
at York Town, and the next year delegates from 143 Ulster
regiments met in the Church at Dungannon, and unani-
mously passed a resolution in favour of legislative
independence, complete Free Trade, and complete
religious toleration. That was ' Loyal Ulster.' Under
this pressure the English Parliament unanimously accepted
the legislative independence of Ireland, and the Act of
1783, in which they granted that independence, is a curious
one in the light of the present debates. It sets forth that
'the right to be bound only by laws enacted by His
Majesty and the Parliament of Ireland shall be, and is
hereby declared to be established for ever,and shall at no time
hereafter be questioned.' * For ever' was eighteen years."*

The Irish Parliament in its constitution was very
similar to the British one, and seemed either to have
been originally formed on its model, or else to have been
inspired by the same mind.

The Poyning's Act was modified, but not repealed, in
1782. It was decided that no bills " should be originated,
or altered, or suppressed by the Privy Council, but, before
any bill passed by both Houses of the Irish Parliament
should receive the assent of the Lord Lieutenant, as the
King's representative, the consent of the Sovereign, under
the great seal of England was necessary."

* Public Lecture.

Grattan's Parliament was therefore a Parliament held
in Dublin, with the right to initiate and formulate legis-
lation regulating the internal administration of Ireland,
but it did not claim to make the legislation law, until it
had received the assent of the Sovereign, and was stamped
by the Monarch's desire with the great seal of England
and the great seal of Ireland.

Defects of the Parliament.

The Parliament thus freed was full of defects, yet the
Irish people could say of it as Touchstone said of his wife,
** She is a poor one, but mine own."

It was solely a Protestant Parliament, and largely
consisted of placemen and representatives of pocket
boroughs. It needed reform to free it from the defects of
its dominant class character, and from the faults which its
exclusiveness had engendered since the abolition of the
rights of Roman Catholic citizens. It needed reform and
purity, which can only be realised when bribery is
proclaimed -to be, not only a political crime, but also a
penal one.

Mr. Grattan said, in the Irish House of Commons,
in 1793: — "I will advert to the state of your representation.
Of three hundred members above two hundred are returned
by individuals ; from forty to fifty are returned by ten
persons. Several of your boroughs have no resident
electors at all ; some of them have but one, and on the
whole two-thirds of the representatives in the House of
Commons are returned by less than one hundred persons."
Previously, in 1790, Mr. Grattan said ; — '*The number of
placemen and pensioners sitting in this house equal nearly
one-half of the whole efficient body."

Mr. CuRRAN, in the same debate, said: — "I rise in
an assembly of three hundred persons, one hundred of
whom have places and pensions."

, Thomas Sheridan cried : — " Are there not many
among us who could not find the way to the place they
represent, who never saw a constituent, who were never
in the borough, who at times cannot remember the
name of it ? "

Mr. ScRUTON, quoting the statistics of the times,
says: — "In several of the boroughs there was no elector
living ; in others there was only one. There was naturally
a tremendous amount of bribery and corruption. Eighty-
six pocket boroughs had been bought by grants of peer-
ages and pensions ; twelve represented pocket boroughs
that the Government had owned ; forty-four were place-
men who held positions of advantage, and voted for the
Government in return ; thirty-two members had promises
not yet fulfilled, and had to vote on this occasion to earn
their rewards ; and twelve only out of the hundred and
eighty-six were put down as not having been registered
among the applicants for peerages, places, or pensions,
and as supporting the Government on public grounds.
There was the regular opposition of eighty-two, of whom
thirty were pocket boroughs, that had not yet been bought,
but were in the market. Fifty-two represented the
popular party, and there were thirty-two waverers. And
so on, through a long list of names. Then there was no
responsible Ministry. The Lord Lieutenant and the Chief
Secretary were responsible, not to the Irish but to the
English Parliament, so that if the Irish House condemned
them they had only to come back to England and account
to their masters — the English Parliament,"

The English Government, during this time, bribed
and influenced the members of the Irish ParHament, in
order that reforms might be retarded, doubtless fearing
that any large measures of land reform, or of extended
representation, would open up the way to an interference
with the arrogant privileges of the landlords and aristocrats
in England.

What Ireland Needed.

There were two measures that were urgently needed,
and these were pressed to the front. The one was Parlia-
mentary Reform, and the other was the Emancipation of
the Roman Catholics, and their recognition as citizens
of the State. The Irish Executive was composed of
English people and was not favourable to either
measure of reform. In 1793, however, Catholics were
allowed to vote for Protestant representatives, but were
themselves excluded from the position. The Execu-
tive feared reform, lest it should lose its hold over the
Parliament, and should find its bribes thrown back into its
lap by independent and honest members.

The Volunteers met in Dublin, in October, 1783, to
consider the questions of Reform and Emancipation, and
while agreeing to the necessity of the former, differed as
to whether representation should be extended to Catholics.
Fiord said No! "for it would lead to the Disestablishment
of the Protestant Church." Grattan said Yes ! *' for it is
just to them." But these Protestant Volunteers opposed
Grattan, and the result was, that the Volunteers losing
their popular support, dwindled rapidly away. In 1785,
Mr. Pitt's administration favoured a further extension of
Free Trade, and on February 12th, Grattan presented to

the Irish Parliament resolutions in favour of it. But the
opposition in England was so strong that Pitt had to yield,
and re-cast three of the provisions, which made the bill of
little worth to the Irish.

In December, 1792, a Catholic Convention was held
in Dublin. Representatives came from all parts of the
country, and petitioned the Crown for enfranchisement.
A number of them were appointed to bear the petition to
London, and to present it to the King. He received it
graciously, and through his Ministers, promised that the
Catholic claims should be recommended in the Royal
Address to both Houses of Parliament. But all this rosy
prospect was unrealised. And the small measure passed
in 1793, came too late to stop the flowing indignation of
the people. Mr. Green says, "The hope of conciliation
was lost in the fast rising tide of religious and social
passion. An Association of United Irishmen begun
among the Protestants of Ulster, with a view of obtaining
Parliamentary Reform, drifted into a correspondence with
France and projects of insurrection. The Catholic
peasantry brooding over their misery and their wrongs,
were equally stirred by the news from France, and their
discontent broke out in the outrages of ' Defenders ' and
* Peep-o'-day ' boys who held the country in terror."

The teachings of the French Revolution, the leaders
of which had not yet violated their principles by the deeds of
blood and shame which make humanity shudder as it thinks
of them, now began to be learned in Ireland. P>eedom
began to inspire the lives of men, in the North and the
South, and hope which, previous to 1783, had been crushed
under the heavy weight of the nation's misery, now began
to show its vigorous and growing life.

72
Excuse for Deaying Remedies.
Wolfe Tone, a young Protestant barrister, of brilliant
gifts, became the head of the movement for bringing
pressure to bear upon a lethargic and selfish Government.
His ideal purpose was to form a union of the whole Irish
people, without local or religious distinctions. For a
time the movement was kept within the limits of the law,
but, ultimately it bade defiance to it. The Attorney-
General — Fitzgibbon, afterwards called Lord Clare —
said in a speech : — " The poor people of Munster live in
a more abject state of poverty than human nature can be
supposed able to bear ; their miseries are intolerable, but
the legislature cannot stand by to see them take the redress
in their own hands. Nothing can be done for their
benefit while the country remains in a state of anarchy."
This has been the excuse for delaying remedial legislation
until the present time. Coercion bills and Crime bills
have affected to be a remedy for disorder, and have been
pushed through the Houses of Parliament with the utmost
speed that Governments could command ; but remedial
legislation has followed tardily and limpingly, as though
afraid to follow too closely on the heels of its fiercer com-
petitor. Statesmen who have been furious in their desire
to hasten repressive measures, have been cool and slow in
their movements when the reform of abuses has been taken
in hand, and when the starving and suffering population
have piteously cried for the removal of the class privileges
which have caused their want and misery. ** Let them be
quiet," has been the cry, when Ireland has been in earnest
in asserting her grievances. " We can do nothing for the
Irish until they are peaceable and still," has been the
declaration of Statesmen. But when quietude has reigned
— the quiet not of apathy, but of sullen despair — the

same parties have cried, *' Ireland is contented and quiet,
and must not be agitated by fresh political measures."
There is a story told of a Welshman, in the days when
men were hung for trivial offences, who was being taken
in a cart to be hanged by the neck. As the cart was
proceeding, the wife of the condemned man — a woman of
weak intellect — pushed through the crowd, and cried
" Davie, where shall I plant the potatoes next year ?"
" Plant them at Jericho," said the exasperated man. The
woman, as she retreated weeping, cried out, " Our Davie's
in a bad temper because he's going to be hung."

The Governments of our country have been like the
weak witted woman, they have complained that the people
of Ireland have been in a "bad temper" because bad laws
and the tyrannies of landlordism have condemned so many
of them to misery and death. But would we have acted
any differently if our rights had been persistently crushed,
if our claims had been continuously disregarded, and ii
our cries had been drowned by the clamour of our
oppressors ? The way to have put Davie in a good
temper \yould have been to revoke the sentence of death,
help him to live a noble life, and let him plant the
potatoes with his own hand. And the true way to
silence the agitation of Ireland is to give the Irish people
juster laws, and larger opportunities of securing national
prosperity and national joy.

Lord Fitzwilliam's Proposals.

Lord Fitzwilliam was next sent out as Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland. He immediately secured the favour of the
Irish, for he was known to be a broad-minded and sympa-
thetic statesman and a gentle and honest administrator.

He evidently believed that concessions to the down-
trodden Catholics was to be a part of governmental
policy. He was sustained in this belief, not only by
the present assurances of Mr. Pitt, but also by the policy
to which he had given his sanction in the past. In a letter
to the Prime Minister, Lord Fitzwilliam declared that half-
measures of reform were of no use, and that *'to make a
reservation is to leave a splinter in the wound."

He recommended firstly a full measure of Catholic
Emancipation, and then one of Parliamentary Reform.
He removed certain agents, who were obnoxious to the
Irish, from the Castle, and held out to the Catholics hopes
of final pacifiation. But before he could face one of the
remedial measures foreshadowed by him he was recalled.
Not three months elapsed before the Beresford and
Jocelyns and other lordly houses secured his removal
from the post he so nobly adorned. Pitt's policy had
changed. He did not like the independence of the Irish
Parliament, and Mr. Lecky does not mince his opinions
on the subject when he asserts that Pitt's object was to
bring the Irish Parliament into contempt that he might
destroy it altogether. Earl Fitzwilliam's letter is a
notable one. In urging the Government to let him have
a free hand in dealing with Catholic Emancipation, he
says: — ** Equality is already granted in the Act of 1793.
It remains to be considered whether the symbol of it shall
be granted or withheld. The peace, tranquility, and
harmony of the country may now be sealed and secured
for ever. "^^ * Mr. Grattan's plan is a short and simple
one. First, a general repeal of all restrictive and qualify-
ing laws ; that done, to alter the oaths, that the people
may be made one Christian people, binding themselves by
one civil oath in a common cause. You will ask do I

mean to carry the principle to the full extent of a general
capacity for every office ? I certainly do for all not regal
or ecclesiastical. These I reserve, and these only. I
would not reserve the highest office in the State — not the
Seals nor the Bench."

Result of Fitzwilliam's Recall.

Fair promises were thus again broken, and the
Catholics were thrown into consternation at the recall of
Earl Fitzwilliam. The united Irishmen under Wolfe Tone
having become impatient of the law's delay, the insolence
of office, and the spurns which patient merit of the un-
worthy had been obliged to take ; maddened by the hope-
less appeals made by them to the Government, and losing
all faith in those who had violated the most sacred assur-
ances, they, in spite of Grattan, Curran, and Flood, burst
into open rebellion.

Insurrection.

In October, an Insurrection Act was passed. The
Habasus Corpus Act was suspended. The Protestant land-
owners, and their fanatical friends who had been known
as Peep-o-Day Boys, now took the name of Orangemen,
and marshalled themselves on the side of the English
Government. They raised forces, banded themselves
together in secret conclaves, and held the North of
Ireland down by terror and bloodshed. English troops
poured into the country, and free quarters were given to
the soldiery in every proclaimed district. The forces
under Sir R. Abercrombie were vile and violent, and by
their brutal outrages incited many of the people to rebel.
The General said of them that they were *' in a state of
licentiousness" which rendered them ** formidable to

everyone but the enemy." He resigned his commission
in disgust. Lord Cornwallis himself referred to *' the
ferocity of our troops who delight in murder," and he
said, ** the conversation even at my table, where you will
suppose I do all I can to prevent it, always turns on
hanging, shooting, murder, &c." Of the free quarters of
the soldiery he said, that it "comprehended rape and
robbery throughout the whole country." In the struggle,
the Protestant forces, ruled by landowners and representa-
tives of the wealthy and dominant classes, .brought them-
selves into notoriety for their cruelty and cowardice. Lord
Cornwallis described them as " contemptible before the
enemy when any serious resistance is made to them, but
ferocious and cruel in the extreme when any poor
wretches, either with or without arms, come within their
power." In the struggle, the losses were large. At least
seventy thousand persons are said to have perished.

Pitt's Opportunity.

Then Mr. Pitt seized what he regarded as a golden
opportunity, and when martial law reigned, by bribery and
corruption he purchased a Legislative Union. But the
people of Ireland were not consulted about this Union, and
had they been allowed to choose for themselves, they
would have indignantly repudiated it. Mr. Bright has stated
that the Union was secured " by proceedings disgraceful
and corrupt to the last degree." And in this statement he
is supported by every clear and careful historian. No one
has the audacity to assert that it was a Union of the two
peoples. A nation was sold by its servile Parliament, who
took with free hand, bribes which enabled the members to
roll in luxury, and the enslaved and bartered people were
compelled to pay the financial price of their own sale.

The Act of Union had to be followed by a bill, empower-
ing the Government to raise, by taxation, the money they
had spent in strangling the Irish Parliament ; and the
King gave his consent for a people to be taxed to pay
bribes to the men who had traitorously slain the freedom
and independence of their country.

Mr. Green says of Mr. Pitt: — ** Disgusted at the
bigoted fury of Irish Protestants, he determined to put an
end to the farce of Independence, which left Ireland help-
less in their hands." Doubtless he intended to make the
Union a real one — one of common interest and brother-
hood, and of mutual sympathy. He proposed therefore
to follow up the Union by the removal of all Catholic
disabilities, and to give to Catholics and Dissenters a
perfect equality of civil rights. He suggested that, instead
of the sacramental test, the British Parliament should
secure political fidelity by an oath of allegiance and loyalty
to the Constitution. To conciliate the Established Church,
he proposed measures for strengthening its means of
discipline, and for increasing the stipends of its poorer
ministers. Many of his proposals were similar to those
suggested by Earl Fitzwilliam ; but there was this great
difference, that while the Earl would have given these
things to a people whose House of Representatives had
been purified, popularised, and freed from unwise inter-
ference on the part of the English Governors, the Premier
was only willing to give them to a people who were
deprived of their separate legislature, and were held
powerless by the preponderating votes of representatives,
most of whom were ignorant of the requirements of Ireland,
or were held in bondage by the chains of personal
and class selfishness. But the King and the high Tories
of the day would not go as far to conciliate the Irish

people as Pitt himself desired to go. George III., with
the bigotry and stupidity for which he is so renowned,
declared that he would break his coronation oath were he
to consent to these proposals. Pitt resigned ; the oppor-
tunity passed ; and when he returned again to power, he
left the Catholics to their fate, with the result that they
remained in civil bonds until a threatened revolution in
1829 forced the Duke of Wellington to grant Catholic
emancipation.

Professor Blackie says that " The authors of this
agitation (in Ireland) were not the demagogues but the
aristocracy ; as indeed in all cases of general discontent,
social fret, and illegal violence, the parties who are accused
of stirring up class against class are not the agitators who
appear on the scene, but the mal-administrators who made
their appearance necessary. Man is an animal naturally
inclined to obey, and to take things quietly ; insurrection
is too expensive an aifair to be indulged in by way of
recreation, and there is no truth in the philosophy of
history more certain than that whenever the multitude of
the ruled rebel against their rulers, the original fault — I
do not say the whole blame, for as things go from bad to
worse, there may be blame and blunders on both sides —
but the original fault and germinative cause of discontent
and revolt unquestionally lies with the rulers."

Mr. Froude, in speaking of the Irish Parliament, calls
it *' an absurd caricature " ; and Lord Brabourne, in his
article , denouncing Mr. Gladstone in Blackwood's
Magazine, says, "Absurd or not, it had the spirit to
refuse the Reform Bill, which Flood presented as the
mouthpiece of the Convention. But this was done by the
initiative and in support of the British Government."

English Interference with the Irish
Parliament.

Yes ! that is the open secret. The British Govern-
ment continued to interfere and to stop Reform after Mr.
Grattan and Mr. Fox had secured parliamentary freedom
in Ireland, and the necessity of the rebellion which
afforded Mr. Pitt a pretext for filching from Ireland her
Parliament was caused by the corrupt influence of the
British Government in preventing Reform. Mr. Goldwin
Smith says : — ** The system of Irish Government after
the declaration of independence probably became more
profligate than ever; the Castle contended with its
increased difficulties by an increase of bribery; the
country nominally independent, was in fact, a dependency
governed by corruption and intrigue."

The Times newspaper in January, 1886, referring to
this period, says: — **The administrative isolation of the
Executive Government, supported on the one hand by
Protestant ascendency in intimate and self-protective
alliance with Protestant England, and on the other by
vast powers of patronage unscrupulously exercised, and
fettered by no legislative restrictions, was a security for
the maintenance of union with Great Britain, which could
not by any conceivable expedients be reproduced." What
regretful tones ! Would it be desirable to resort to this
condition of bribery and unscrupulous exercise of patron-
age } The governing power in the country was a small
minority not in sympathy with the great mass of the
people (men who belonged to a class and a religion
opposed to the majority of the nation) ; and yet so great
was the pressure of the nation's requirements that these

men would have yielded but for the selfishness and cor-
ruption of their nature, stirred up by the bribes of the
English governors and officials.

The two systems of government clashed. The British
Government still desired all legislation to be drawn up in
the interests of privilege, of landlordism, and of the
aristocracy ; the Irish Reformers wanted the interests of
the people to be chiefly considered ; and in the shock of
these two systems of government,Ireland lost her Parliament.

Mr. Lecky, in his latest volume, has given abundant
evidence proving the interference of the English Govern-
ment with the Irish Parliament. He shows that the Duke
of Portland when he was Lord Lieutenant tried to fix **the
precise limits of parliamentary independence, the con-
sideration which should be given for the protection
expected, and the share it would be proper for them to
contribute towards the general support of the Empire."
But Mr. Lecky says that his *' secret correspondence
shows" that he was really aiming "to regain for England
a very large part of the legislative supremacy which had
been surrendered."

Mr. Parsons, afterwards Earl of Rosse, in 1790,
says : — *' The acquisitions of 1782 freed this country from
internal power but not from internal malversation. On
the contrary, this country has been governed worse since
then than ever it was before, and why ? Because of these

very acquisitions It has been the object of

English Ministers ever since to countervail what we ob-
tained at that period, and substitute a surreptitious and
clandestine influence for the open power which the English
Legislature was then obliged to relinquish."

Mr. Lecky shows further that one-eighth of the
public revenue of Ireland was divided between the Mem-

bers of Parliament, and he declares that " The men who
had been most opposed to the Constitution of 1782, were
the men who were employed to administer it, and they
did so almost avowedly with the purpose of keeping
Parliament in complete and habitual subservience to the
English Ministers." And again, — **The Irish Government
was completely subordinated to the play of party
government in England. An Irish administration which
commanded the full confidence of the Irish Parliament,
might, at any moment, be overthrown by a vote in the
English Parliament, on some purely English question.
Well might Mr. Gratton say — ** The Ministers sell your
Lords and buy your Commons." And Mr. Lecky declares
that *' it consisted almost entirely of landlords, lawyers,
and placemen."

That there was little hope of anything being done by
such a body, one may suppose, until the pressure of the
English Government, reduced by its Continental broils,
allowed the weight of Irish agitation to be duly felt.
Chance possibilities of English difficulties with Continental
and Oriental powers alone offered to Ireland a possibility
of relief.

How THE Act of Union was Secured.

To secure the Union, a million sterling was spent in
bribes ; a million and a half was expended in buying up
the interest that aristocrats claimed to have in the represen-
tation of boroughs. As much as ;^8ooo was given for a
vote, while other members, wiser in their generation,
secured pensions for their services at the rate of ;!f2ooo
a year. Twenty peerages, ten bishoprics, one chief-
justiceship, and twelve judgeships were given to the men
who had voted for the Union. People who met to protest

were treated as rebels ; the military charging and scattering
public meetings and demonstrations. Twenty-seven out
of thirty-two counties sent petitions against the Union.
In County Down 17,000 petitioned against it, and only 415
for it. In the whole country the petitioners against it
numbered 700,000, and the petitioners for it only 3000.
The information on this subject, supplied in Mr. Lecky's
book — "Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland" — is very
instructive. If the Parliament had failed to advance the
interests of the country, the blame might be laid at the
doors of those who interfered wdth the representatives,
and, by bribery, corrupted them. But, in spite of great
defects and limitations, of class representation and veniality
on the part of the members of Parliament, the freedom of
the country grew, and the prosperity of the country ad-
vanced.

Pitt's Argument for the Union.

When Mr. Pitt spoke in favour of the Union, what
was his plea ? He admitted the prosperity of Ireland, and
then argued that, "As Ireland is so prosperous under her
own Parliament, we can calculate that the amount of her
prosperity will be trebled under a British Legislature.''
He omitted from his calculation a most important item.
He did not note that freedom and self-government are
powerful factors in establishing that confidence which is
so necessary to advancement. An old writer, centuries
ago, was astute enough to observe that "wingless bees
make no honey ;" and modern experience has shown
that slave labour is not so productive as free labour, and
that nations upon whose limbs fetters are placed, do not
take the rapid strides which are easily taken by nations that
are contented and free.

Ireland's Prosperity under her own
Parliament.

In 1785 the Irish sent into England goods to the
value of two millions and a half, and received back goods
valued at one million. In 1797, after fifteen years of Home
Rule, Ireland sent into England more than ;^3, 000,000
worth of linen and linen yam, and between /'z, 000, 000
and /^3, 000, 000 value of provisions and cattle, besides
corn and other articles of produce, while she still imported
from England only ;^i, 000,000 worth of English goods,
raising on her own soil what the inhabitants needed besides.

The Testimonies of the '* Respectable "
Classes.

Lord Clare — the Tory Fitzgibbon — in 1798 said: —
** There is not a nation on the habitable globe which has
advanced in cultivation — in manufactures, with the same
rapidity, in the same period — (from 17^2 to 1798), as
Ireland."

Lord Grenville said in 1797 ''that the Irish had
created a commerce with which they were before un-
acquainted, and had extended their manufactures, and
what they esteemed still more valuable, had obtained a
free constitution." Mr. Grey, afterwards Lord Grey, in
1 799, in talking of the increase in industry and wealth in
England during the period of Ireland's Parliamentary
freedom, said that " there was nothing in the advancement
of England to parallel the progress of Ireland." Lord
Sheffield also stated that " perhaps the improvement of
Ireland is as rapid as any country ever experienced."

Mr. Plunkett, in 1799, spoke of Ireland as *" A little
island with a population of four or five millions of people,

* See Swift McNeill's "Irish Industries."

hardy, gallant, and enthusiastic ; possessed of all the
means of civilization, agriculture, and commerce well
pursued and understood ; a constitution fully recognised
and established ; her revenues, her trade, her manufactures
thriving beyond her hope, or the example of any other
country of her extent, within these few years advancing
with a rapidity astonishing even to herself, not complain-
ing of deficiency in these respects but enjoying and
acknowledging her prosperity."

The Bankers of Dublin in 1798 passed the following
resolutions : —

" Resolved — That since the renunciation of the power
of Great Britain in 1782 to legislate for Ireland,
the commerce and prosperity of this kingdom
have eminently increased."
** Resolved — That we attribute these blessings under
Providence to the wisdom of the Irish Parlia-
ment."
*The Guild of Merchants met January 14th, 1799, and
resolved as follows : —

1. "That the commerce of Ireland has increased and

her manufactures improved beyond example since
the independence of the kingdom was restored
in 1782."

2. "That we look with abhorrence on any attempt to

deprive the people of Ireland of their Parliament
and thereby of their constitutional right and
immediate power to legislate for themselves."

Mr. Jebb, afterwards a Justice of the Court of King's
Bench in Ireland, in 1798 published a pamphlet in which
he says — ** In the course of fifteen years our commerce,

* O'Connell's Defence in 1844.

our agriculture, and our manufactures have swelled to an
amount that the most sanguine friends of Ireland could
not have dared to prognosticate."

A Parliamentary document shows that from 1785 to
the time of the Union, the increase of luxuries in Ireland
greatly exceeded the rate of increase in England, and if
the growing wealth of a nation is shown by the increase of
its comforts and luxuries, then the figures which follow will
tell their own tale : —

Increase in consumption of

Teas . . England 45 percent.; Ireland 84 per cent.

Tobacco ,, 64 ,, ,, 100

Wines . . „ 52 „ „ 74

Sugar . . „ 53 „ „ 57

Coffee . . ,, 75 ,, .,, 600

Daniel O'Connell contended that "no country ever
so rapidly improved as Ireland did during that
period."

Mr. Lecky has made several very forcible statements
respecting the work of the Irish Parliament. He says that
during the eighteenth century the Irish Parliament was on
the whole "a vigilant and intelligent guardian of the
material interests of the country " ; and further, that
** during the greater part of the century it indeed had
little power except that of protecting the people against
the law crushing Irish produce, but what little it could do
it appears to have done. Its journals show a minute
attention to industrial questions, to the improvement
of means of communication, and to the execution of
public works."

What the Union has Cost England and Ireland.

This was the Parliament which was strangled by jobbery,
corruption, and the intolerant jealousy and craven fears of
the privileged classes of England and Ireland. Its destruc-
tion was an iniquity, and the results of it were disastrous
to both nations. It left the one nation full of bitterness,
and of the dissatisfaction which always springs from a sense
of injustice. It left to the other nation a terrible legacy
of care and disunion. The union of the Parliaments resulted
in the disunion of the peoples of the two counties, and it
caused the Imperial Parliament to groan under a weight of
difficulties which have destroyed its efficiency. The privi-
leged classes gained for a time their purpose. They were able
to retain their power,and frustrate and retard measures which
were calculated to distribute wealth, and elevate the democ-
racy of both countries. The English Masses had no
representation, and cannot, with justice, be charged with
complicity in the crime. The Union was a blunder in
conception, and it was secured by fraud, misrepresentation,
and physical force. It alienated Irish sympathies from
England. It weakened the power of the Empire. It
raised an enemy at the very doors of the British Citadel.
It delayed great questions of reform, and it threw Ireland
again into destitution, misery and rebellion. What was
required, was, not the exasperating policy of Pitt ; not
the demolition of the Irish structure of Government ; but
the reform and purification of the Irish Parliament. For
if, under so antiquated and restricted a Parliamentary
representation, the country had thriven, what would it
have done if all the posts of the nation had been thrown
open to the highest merit, irrespective of creed or class,
and if the voice of the masses had been heard in the

elections of the day; and what would it have done if the
English had allowed Irish genius to work out the great
problem of happy and safe self-government, without
unwise and jealous interference ? The difficulties of to-day
may be traced to the wrongs of the past, and to the stings
left in the Irish heart, by the tyranny, cruelty, and crimes
of the past, and the fraternity, fellowship, and true union
of the nations can never be fully realised, until the wfongs of
Ireland are righted, until resentment is lost in a friendship
born of confidence, and until the reign of darkness is for-
gotten in a brighter reign of freedom, justice, and love.

I listened with much satisfadlion to two of the Ledures
included in this little work on the government of Ireland.

The Author then spoke clearly, ably, and temperately on
behalf of a people with whom I sympathise warmly, and nothing
but good can come from presenting in a printed form the fads
and opinions he then advanced.

On no subjed is information, honest and reliable, more needed
than on the Irish Question in all its phases, and the Rev. S. Lloyd
has made a useful contribution to the discussion of this question in
the book now presented to the public.

T. Wayman.

Saville Close,

Halifax,

January 315^ 1888.

PART II.

IRELAND UNDER THE ACT OF UNION. FROM
PITT TO GLADSTONE.

In 1799 Mr. Pitt declared that the great object of the
Union was to tranquilise Ireland and attach it to the larger
island. He asserted his desire to make Ireland an integral
part of the British Empire, and to bind all the inhabitants
of the British Islands together in the bonds of common
interest, and of mutual sympathy and friendship. In
doing this he ignored the arguments and warning of the
Irish leaders, and scouted the fears openly expressed by
those who knew best the feelings and opinions of the
majority of the Irish people. Henry Grattan's words were
full of wisdom and forethought. In one of his great
efforts to prevent the Parliamentary amalgamation he
said : — *'The reform of Parliament, you say, and Catholic
Emancipation are only pretexts ; the object you say is
separation, and here you exact unconditional submission,
you must " subdue before you reform." Indeed ! Alas
you think so ! But you forget you subdue by reforming.
It is the best conquest you can obtain over your own
people. But let me suppose you succeed in " subduing
before you reform," what is your success ? A military

government, a perfect despotism, a hapless victory over
the principles of a mild government and a mild consti-
tution—a Union. But what may be the ultimate conse-
quence of such a victory — a Separation."

These words may be commended to those who, in the
present political struggle, declare their fear of a separation,
and if more be needed, Daniel O'Connell's words are
emphatic. He said in a speech delivered in 1813 : —
** Your enemies say that I wish for a separation between
England and Ireland. The charge is false. It is, to use a
modern expression, as false as hell ; and the men who
originated it, and the men who inculcate it, know its false-
hood. There lives not a man less desirous of separation
between the two countries. There lives not a man more
deeply convinced that the connection between them, based
on one King and two separate Parliaments, would be of
the utmost value to the happiness of both countries."
If Mr. Pitt's desire was a pure one, he was unfortunate
in the means he adopted for securing it, and also in
the fact that he abandoned the ameliorative plans which
had been foreshadowed and promised before the Par-
liament of Ireland consented to extinguish its own separate
life. He was also unfortunate in choosing a scheme of
government to which the patriots of the day objected, and
against which the leaders of the people have protested
through all the years since the Act of Union was passed.
That Mr. Pitt purposed to pass other measures may be
clearly seen, but he was foiled in his attempts by the
resistance of his own party, and the refusal of the King.

Pitt's Surrender to the King.

Sir James Graham said : — •* Mr. Pitt was ready to
do the right thing at the right time, but genius gave way

madness, and two generations have in vain deplored the
loss of an opportunity."

The importance he attached to the Union may be
seen from the inducements he held out in order to buy
off the opposition of members of the Established Church,
and of the Presbyterian ministers who had become
closely allied with the National Party. To the former he
guaranteed increased stability to the ecclesiastical insti-
tutions ; and to the latter a large increase of the Regium
Donum, which would make them independent of the
subscriptions of their churches. His assurance of reforms
favourable to the Catholics did not, however, conciliate
them as may be seen from the first great speech of Daniel
O'Connell, in which he said, amid the applause of an
audience composed of many leading lawyers and commer-
cial men, that ** The Catholics will show every friend of
Ireland that they are incapable of selling their country,''
and that ** he would rather confide in the justice of his
brethren, the Protestants of Ireland, who had already
liberated him, than lay his country at the feet of foreigners."
That Mr. Pitt was wishful to secure the Catholic interest
may be seen from his proposal to endow the Catholic
Clergy in Ireland, to mitigate the tithe-hardships, and
to ensure the emancipation of Catholics from injustice
and iniquities.

He therefore retired from office, to return, however,
after a brief interval, ignoring all his previous promises
and protestations, and surrendering the plans he had
carefully drawn up. An insane King, and a blind and
bigoted party, prevented a Statesman from making the
Union of Parliament a real union of the peoples, and the
most powerful minister of the day, who could not long
have been resisted had he persisted ii; his purposes,

0^^f'''y

ingloriously surrendered his convictions and tarnished his
statesmanship at the call of the King and his henchmen.

The objection of the King, sustained by Lord Lough-
borough, and denied by Lord Kenyon and Sir John Scott
(afterwards Lord Eldon), was that to grant Catholic Emanci-
pation would be a violation of his Coronation oath, and that
the throne would therefore properly revert to the Stuart line.
On a copy'of his memorandum of 1795, he wrote, referring
to Earl Fitzwilliam's proposals, ''And I, feeling the duty
I owe to my coronation oath, would not have given my
assent to any Bill that had but a shadow of putting Papists
and Presbyterians in a state of equality with the Church of
England."*

Genius versus Madness.

When Mr Pitt resigned, the King became ill, and on
his recovery sent a message to Mr. Pitt by his physician —
" Tell Mr. Pitt I am now quite recovered from my illness ;
but what has he not to answer for, who is the cause of my
having been taken ill at all ? "

Mr. Shaw-Lefevre says: — "Pitt was profoundly
affected by this, and determined not to press the question
further." The King's tendency to madness therefore
became a potent factor in the continued enforcement of
unjust and unequal laws upon the Catholic population of
the Empire. How many Catholics were driven mad by
the injustice is not stated.

There is one thing that must surprise all readers of
history, and that is, that the people of Ireland did not
renew the civil war, and from North to South burst into
open conflict. An attempt was made, it is true, but it was

* Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, quoted by Right Hon. G. J.
Shaw-Lefevre — " Peel and O'Connell," page 13.

feeble and abortive. This can only be explained by the
fact that the people of Ireland had become dispirited and
scattered, and were held by sullen despair in the bonds of
inaction. Others looked upon the Parliamentary Union
as an experiment, which they believed to be foredoomed
to failure. Mr. C. J. Fox was one of these. He protested
against the Union with might and main, and declared his
belief in its ineflficacy to meet and remedy the miseries of
Ireland ; but when it was passed he was willing to allow
the experiment to be tried. His opinion that it would
fail has been justified by an experience of eighty-seven
years.

When presenting the Catholic Petition of 1804 to the
House of Commons, Mr. Fox said, in concluding a note-
worthy speech : — '* The protestant ascendency has been
compared to a garrison in Ireland. It is not in our power
to add to the strength of this garrison, but I would convert
the beseigers themselves into the garrison."

It was not until Daniel O'Connell arose and thun-
dered in the ears of the people of Ireland the truth, that
they must rouse themselves if they would be free, that they
threw off their lethargy and stupor, banded themselves
in the ranks of the " Catholic Association," and expressed
their determination not to rest until they had swept away
the laws and political arrangements which crippled and
impeded the free life of every Catholic in the realm.
O'Connell never seemed to be tired of crying.

" Hereditary bondsmen, know you not
Who would be free themselves must strike the blow."

When he arose, the Irish were, to use the words of Mr.
T. P. O'Connor, " literally aliens in their own country."

The Purpose of the Act of Union.

Mr. Pitt, in introducing the Act of Union, declared
that by it " Ireland was to gain protection in the hour of
danger, increase of commerce, command of English
capital, and the avenue to honours, distinctions, and ap-
pointments in the general service of the empire," and that,
while Ireland was to be made "more free and happy,"
there would also be established " mutual harmony and
confidence between the two nations."*

The legislative Union was accomplished, according
to the words of its author, for a specific purpose. It is,
therefore, within the limits of discussion to ask whether the
purpose has been accomplished, and if not, what has
prevented it ? We have already seen that the Union
was secured by fraud and force, and in opposition to the
desires of the people of Ireland. Grattan said that " the
whole unbribed intellect of Ireland was opposed to the
Union."

Mr. Lecky and the Union.

Mr. Lecky says : — " Whatever may be thought of
the abstract merits of the arrangement, the Union as
it was carried, was a crime of deepest turpitude." ** In
the case of Ireland, as in the case of Poland, a national
constitution was destroyed by a foreign power, contrary
to the wishes of the people. In the one case the deed was
a crime of violence, in the other it was a crime of
treachery and corruption. In both cases a legacy of
enduring bitterness was the result." Is there not in the
iniquity which marked its establishment a suflficient reason
for the failure of the Union ? Unrighteousness in individ-
ual or national life can never be permanent. It is opposed

* See " Peel and O'Connell," by G. J. Shaw-Lefevre, page 2.

to the genius of the highest Hfe, both human and Divine. It
violates the principles which are the basis of the Gospel,
and which are interwoven into the very texture of human
nature. Enforced unions founded on unrighteousness,
and opposed to truth and love, can never be happy. The ex-
perience of life is against it. A rape of violence and cruelty
can only bring sorrow to the weaker power, and shame to
the stronger one. The History of England and of Ireland,
during the present century, proves this, for England has
had to bear the shame of keeping Ireland subdued by the
overthrow of free institutions and the forcible subjection of
all that has been noblest in her national life. Irishmen have
felt the sting keenly, and have taken their stand on the
several distinct maxims very eloquently announced by
Daniel O'Connell in his great speech on " the Repeal of
the Union."*

O'Coni^ell's Arguments.

In that speech he contended that Ireland was fit for
legislative independence, and was entitled to it. That the
Parliament of Ireland was as ancient as that of England,
and had not derived its existence from any charter of the
British Crown, but had sprung out of the natural rights
of freemen. He asserted that its independence long
claimed was finally recognised and confirmed by solemn
compact between the nations in 1782. He showed that
self-government had not been an idle toy, but an efficient
weapon in the hands of Ireland, and had contributed to
her progress in manufactures and commerce, and that after
the Union Ireland's prosperity steadily declined. Then
turning to the Constitutional side of the question, he
argued by quotations from great authorities, "that a

* O'Connell's Speeches.

legislature cannot transfer the power of making laws into
other hands, for being but a delegated power from the
people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others."
He claimed '* that a case of specific fraud and coercion
was sufficient to invalidate an indenture in a Court of Law."
He then went on to prove that the Union had produced
the most disastrous results in Ireland. It had robbed the
people of their constitutional right to maintain a control
over the conduct of the judiciary and the executive. It
robbed them also through the tax-gatherer, by imposing an
inordinate share of the public burthen on Ireland. It forced
them to submit to an imperfect representation in the
House of Commons, to inadequate powers in the Corpora-
tions that ruled their cities, and to see the public employ-
ments paid by their money given to Englishmen and
Scotchmen." He proved also, by elaborate statistics, that
the failure of trade, of manufactures, and of commerce,
was an immediate result of the iniquitous union.

What the people of Ireland have thought of the Union
may be seen, however, not only in the speeches of their
great leaders, but also in the way in which they have
regarded the memory of those who bartered their country's
liberties and rights.

While Grattan and Curran, and others who opposed
the Union are lovingly remembered, Castlereagh, Clare,
and Pitt are execrated. There is a story told of Castlereagh
that he was one day crossing College Green when he was
accosted by an Irish peasant, who said — " My Lord, will it
plaze ye to give me sixpence." "What will you do with
it .?" said his lordship. " Indeed," was the reply, " I'd
trate all the frinds ye 'ave in Ireland with it." Nor can
we wonder at this, for Lord Cornwallis expressed his
satisfaction when Castlereagh was appointed to the office of

Chief Secretary for Ireland, by saying " His appointment
gives me great satisfaction, as he is so very unlike an
Irishman."

The Benevolent Acts of a Paternal
Government.

The Government of Ireland having passed into the
hands of the Parliament in London, was immediately
characterised by the introduction of coercive measures.
During the first session of the United Parliament, five
Coercion Acts were placed upon the Statute Book. Only
five months elapsed before a coercion measure was passed,
with severer clauses than those which had been carried
during the rebelHon of 1798.

Mr. T. P. O'Connor, in his able work on the
Parnell Movement, says: — "Under the Act of 1800,
courts-martial had the right to try prisoners ; two-thirds
of the officers could pronounce sentence, and the sentence
might be the sentence of death. To encourage these
tribunals in doing their duty, the officers were instructed,
in the words of the Act, ' to take the most vigorous and
effective measures ;' and they received still further encou-
ragement by being made absolutely irresponsible ; * no
act,' decreed the Legislature, ' done by these tribunals
shall be questioned in a court of law.' In 18 17 a modified
Insurrection Act was passed, which in some respects was
worse than the preceding Acts. A body of justices — that
is, of landlords — were entitled to form a tribunal if they
were presided over by a Serjeant-at-law or a Queen's
Council, and this tribunal had the right to pass sentences
varying from one year's imprisonment to seven years*
transportation ; they were, like the courts-martial, irres-
ponsible, for there was no appeal and no cerlioraii. These

courts were employed in the trial of persons described as
* idle and disorderly,' and the * idle and disorderly ' were
included in the following category : —

(i) Anyone found out of his or her dwelling-house
between two hours after sunset and sunrise, who
could not prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal
that he or she was upon his or her * lawful occa-
sions'— the mere fact of being out was sufficient
authority to a policeman to arrest and detain till
trial.

(2) Persons taking unlawful oaths, or

(3) Having arms, or

(4) Found between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. in a public-house

or an unlicensed house in which spirituous liquors
were sold, and not being inmates or travellers.

(5) Persons assembled 'unlawfully and tumultuously.'

(6) Persons hawking seditious papers, unless they
disclose the persons from whom they received
them.

It would, of course, be assumed by my readers,
especially English readers, that these statutes were severe
only in wording or intention and not in practical operation.
But there was not one of these Acts which was not carried
not only to the full lengths authorized by the words and
intentions of the Act but to a large extent farther."

The felling of trees brought persons under the juris-
diction of a court of landlords, and exposed them to the
sentence of seven years' penal servitude. Men were flogged
almost to death, and for the most trivial offences whole
districts were proclaimed. Attempts to improve the ordinary
law were resolutely opposed by the Houses of Commons
and Lords, and Daniel O'Connell was thwarted in all his
measures for improving the condition of the Irish tenant.

*' Between 1825 and 1836 no less than four Acts of Parlia-
ment were passed for the purpose of suppressing political
organizations which he (O'Connell) had founded, and as
the organizations were under the control of O'Connell, it
is needless to say that they were legal, constitutional and
peaceful in their methods."*

The way in which landlords and tenants were treated
may be seen from the following table, quoted by Mr. T. P.
O'Connor : —

For the Landlord.

1800. Habeas Corpus suspended ; Coercion Act.

1801. Habeas Corpus suspended ; two Coercion Acts.

1802. Habeas Corpus suspended ; two Coercion Acts.

1803. Habeas Corpus suspended ; two Acts.

1804. Habeas Corpus suspended.

1805. Habeas Corpus suspended ; one Coercion Act.

1807. February i, Coercion Act.

,, Habeas Corpus suspended ; August 2, Coercion Act.

1808. Habeas Corpus suspended.

1809. Habeas Corpus suspended.

1814. Habeas Corpus suspended ; one Coercion Act.

1815. Habeas Corpus suspended ; Insurrection Act continued.

1816. Habeas Corpus suspended ; first Eviction Act ; Insur-

rection Act continued.

1817. Habeas Corpus suspended ; one Coercion Act ; second

Eviction Act.

1818. Second Eviction Act.

1820. Third Eviction Act; same year, fourth Eviction Act.
1822. Habeas Corpus suspended ; two Coercion Acts.
1823 to 1828, Habeas Corpus suspended, and one Coercion
Act in 1823,

1829. Habeas Corpus suspended.

1830. Habeas Corpus suspended.; Importation of Arms Act.

1831. Whiteboy Act ; Stanley's Arms Act ; fifth Eviction Act.

1832. Importation of Arms and Gunpowder Act.

" The Parnell Movement," Page 20.

100

1833- Habeas Corpus suspended ; Suppression of Disturbance
Act ; Change of Venue Act.

1834. Habeas Corpus suspended ; Suppression of Disturbance

Amendment and Continuance Act ; Importation of
Arms and Gunpowder Act.

1835. Public Peace Act

1836. Another Arms Act ; sixth Eviction Act,

1838. Another Arms Act.

1839. Unlawful Oaths Act.

1840. Another Arms Act.

1841. Outrages Act ; another Arms Act.

1843. Another Arms Act; Act consolidating all previous

Coercion Acts.

1844. Unlawful Oaths Act.

For the Tenant.

1829. Mr. Brownlow's Bill dropped in House of Lords.
1820. Mr. Grattan's demand for an Improvement of Waste

Lands Bill refused.
1831. Mr. Smith O'Brien's Bill for the relief of the Aged

dropped.

1835. Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill dropped.

1836. Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill dropped.
Mr. Lynch's Reclamation Bill dropped.

1842. Irish Arterial Drainage Act passed.

1845. Lord Stanley's Bill dropped.

,, Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill dropped.*

Deaths of Pitt and Fox.

Mr. Pitt died in 1806, and the Grenville Ministry was
formed. Once more the Irish hoped against hope for the
the attainment of remedial legislation. Mr. Fox, who had
done so much for Irish independence twenty-four years
previously, was now the leading force of this Ministry,
and it was well known that he was desirous of immediately
granting an Act for the Emancipation of the Catholic

* " The Parnell Movement," page 22.

101

majority in Ireland ; but the King's stubbornness again
stood in the way. Fox promised the Irish members that
on the first opportunity he would bring their claims forward.
Unfortunately however he died in the same year, when the
Act for suspending Habeas Corpus was allowed to run out,
and when the Grenville Cabinet proposed a Bill for allow-
ing Catholics to hold Commissions in the Army and Navy,
the loss of Mr. Fox rendered them impotent to overcome
the opposition of the King, and they were driven from
office.

In 1616 an Act was passed to cheapen evictions, and
it was said that "notices to quit have since fallen like snow-
flakes." The Union has therefore been further prevented
from being ratified and accepted by the people of Ireland
in consequence of the failure of English Ministers to
keep the most solemn promises ; the delay in reforms that
seemed imminent under the Irish Parliament and the in-
creased opposition that the Irish representatives had to
face in their endeavour to secure for all citizens freedom
from unjust legislation, and common equality in law and
government.

Delay of Catholic Emancipation.

Nothing can be clearer in Irish History than that the
Emancipation of Catholics was wellnigh attained when the
Union was brought about. But twenty-nine years of
suff'ering, waiting, and struggle passed before the House
of Lords and the English Government gave to the people
the boon of Catholic Emancipation. Even then it was
declared to be grudgingly yielded and not freely bestowed.
Yielded too not to the inherent justice of the Catholic
demands, bnt to a base and a craven fear of agitation
aiid force.

102

In 1807 Mr. Percival had called Lord Howick's (after-
wards Earl Grey) Bill, which was intended to open up fuller
careers of usefulness and gloryto the sons of Catholic gentle-
men— ** one of the most important and dangerous measures
that ever was submitted to the judgment of the Legislature.''
During the whole of the Percival administration, which
lasted from 1807 to 18 12, the principle of Catholic
exclusion was paramount in the Councils of the Cabinet,
just as the principle of refusing to allow the Irish
to govern their own country is the only bond of cohesion
in the alliance of theTories and Dissentient Liberals in 1 888.

The King was urged by Lord Eldon and others to
refuse this consent to Lord Howick's bill, and though h-e
had previously given that consent, he now withdrew it,
and called upon the Government to pledge themselves
never again to introduce the measure, or propose anything
affecting the Catholic question. This they refused to
promise, and resigned their offices.

When George IV. was proclaimed Regent, the
Catholics expected that they would have his sympathy and
aid, inasmuch as he had previously declared his disagree-
ment with his father's views on the subject of Catholic
Emancipation. They had yet to learn however that the
Prince Regent professed to favour the Catholics in sheer
opposition to the King, and for the purpose of giving him
annoyance. There was no love lost between this parent
and his son. The Tories were also at the outset fearful lest
the Regent should bestow his favour on the Catholics.
But they were soon reassured, for Lord Eldon, the noted
Tory lawyer, wrote to a friend that the Regent had become
strongly Anti-Catholic, he said : — *'My young master is as
eager as his father was upon that, and of the same way of
thinking."

103

In 1810, Daniel O'Connell at a crowded meeting called
by the requisition of Grand Juries in Dublin, made a great
speech, and a petition was drawn up declaring that the
Union had been put to the test of experience and had
failed. It had produced an increase of distress, and was
endangering the connection between the two countries.

In 1 8 12 Mr. George Canning carried a resolution in
the House of Commons, to the effect " That the House
would, early in the next Session, take into its most serious
consideration the laws affecting the Roman Catholics."
But the Parliament was dissolved later in the year, and
Mr. Canning found himself unable to carry out his ame-
liorative purpose.

It was not until 1821 that a bill for emancipation
forced its way through the House of Commons, only how-
ever to be contemptuously thrown out by the sworn
opponents of the Democracy, who are seated in the gilded
chamber.

Death of Grattan.

Previous to this the great Grattan passed away amidst
the regrets of the nation. He was a splendid and repre-
sentative patriot, who had walked through life with hands
unsullied by political crime or baseness, and his demise
left the Irish cause destitute of one of its most eloquent
and able supporters. Even England acknowledged his
patriotism and greatness, and opened her great mausoleum
at Westminster for the reception of his remains. There his
body still lies side by side with the body of Charles James
Fox. English Statesmen honoured his remains, though
they had done all they could to break his noble heart, and
had trampled beneath their feet the principles and senti-
ments that were dearer to him than life itself. They

104

respected his corpse, but let him die with sorrow in his
heart, as he saw the cause for which he had suffered and
struggled, openly opposed by the English Governments.

In the year 1822 a measure for securing Catholic
Emancipation was again passed by the Commons and duly
refused by the Lords. This was repeated in 1823 and
and 1825. For nineteen years the subject was conscien-
ciously brought before Parliament, until in 1824 Daniel
O'Connell came forward, and " with the reachings and
graspings of a vivacious mind," succeeded in forming the
Catholic Association.

The Aristocracy and Catholic Emancipation.

The action of the House of Lords was sustained by
all the titled classes in the country, with few exceptions.
The King's brother, the Duke of York, placed himself
at the head of the opposition, and declared again and
again his determination to resist the claims of the Catholics.
Amid uproarious cheers, he declared that whether as subject
or sovereign he would ever oppose the Catholic demands,
" so help him God."

Lord Chancellor Eldon wrote : — " Never was anything
like the sensation the Duke of York's speech has made, it
has had such an operation upon all ranks of men, that it
will create insuperable difficulties to passing the intended
measure another year." And again, ** It has placed him
on a pinnacle of popularity." In another letter he wrote : —
" Dined with the Duke of York. Twenty-four rejoicing
Protestants round the table ; we drank the '48 and the year
'88, and the glorious and immortal memory. LadyWarwicke
and Lady Braybroke would not let their husbands go and
vote for the Catholics ; so we Protestants drink daily, as
pur favourite toast 'the ladies who locked up their hu§-

bands.'" In reading this one must be inclined to think
that the letter was written immediately after the dinner,
and before its bibulous effects had passed away, and yet it
is only a specimen of the way in which the Catholic
defeat was signalised.

In giving his account of the " Pitt " dinner, Lord
Eldon says: — "The company were quite uproarious, they
were in such high spirits at the Catholic defeat." That
was in 1825, and alas for the prescience of these Statesmen,
before four years had passed away, in spite of these
'* noble" opponents, the genius of O'Connell, and the
strength of the Irish people compelled the Government to
consent to the emancipation of the Catholics.

In 1827 Lord Liverpool was smitten with paralysis,
and Mr. Canning was entrusted with the formation of the
Cabinet. He had much difficulty in securing an adminis-
tration, for Mr. Robert Peel — afterwards Sir Robert — and
the Duke of Wellington refused to act with him, because
of his sympathy with the Irish claims and his avowed wish
to carry Catholic Emancipation. Again death came to
delay the settlement of the question, and the removal of
George Canning from this life, put off Catholic Emanci-
pation for two years longer.

The Clare Election.

The Waterford, Monaghan, and Westmeath elections
began to make the landlords and the aristocracy awake to
the importance of the question. Under the influence of
O'Connell, the tenantry of Ireland — the 40/- freeholders,
who have done so much in England and Ireland to extend
freedom to the masses — went to the polls and steadily
voted against the nominees of the landlords. The result
was that the Beresfords, the Jocelyns, and the Waterfords

io6

were defeated, and a crowning triumph was obtained for
the popular party, when O'Connell defeated the Govern-
ment candidate, and was returned as member for Clare.
The Election was a noticeable one, for while an army
waited to put down any semblance of disturbance, the
people walked resolutely to the voting booths, held on one
day 1500 meetings at the same time, and took vows to
abstain from whisky until the election was over, so that
no pretext could be advanced by the Government that
there had been violence, intimidation, or interference with
freedom of voting. For six days the elections continued
without disturbance.

When Lous XVI. of France was informed of the
defection of the French guards, he cried, "This is a
revolt." " Sire," said the Duke de Liancourt, ** it is a
revolution." And so this defeat of the ministerial party
by the despised Catholics was also a revolution, though it
was carried out by peaceful methods, and it forced convic-
tion to the mind of the Government that the people of
Ireland were really in earnest.^'

Wellington's Choice.

The Duke of Wellington choosing betwen emanci-
pation and rebellion, urged the reluctant King to consent
to the emancipation of the Catholics, and at last the
policy of Grattan and O'Connell was affirmed by the action
of the British Parliament. But though the Catholics were
freed from their irksome chains, and Government offices
were opened to them by Statute law, yet so great was the
prejudice against them that it was some time before many
of them were recognised as having any claim upon the
attention of the higher powers in the realm. Measures

* Mr. Godkin — " Land War in Ireland."

107

were also adopted and limitations were introduced which
showed how grudgingly the boon had been surrendered.
The Catholic Association, which, under the guidance and
inspiration of O'Connell, had won the victory, was dis-
solved by Parliament. O'Connell had his election at
Clare declared void by a phrase inserted in the Emanci-
pation Act for this very purpose. The 40/- freeholders
were speedily deprived of the franchise. Their power was
seen to be too great, and so the representatives of the pri-
vileged classes, by raising the qualification, and revising
the register in twelve counties, reduced the electorate from
100,000 to 12,000. Altogether 356,000 men who had
sustained O'Connell in his work, were penalised at the very
moment of their triumph, by the raising of the qualification
from 40/- to £10.

Wellington's Motives.

The Duke of Wellington wrote Peel, and said : — " If I
could believe that the Irish nobility and gentry would
recover their lost influence, the just influence of property,
without making these concessions, I would not move."^'

The Irish Catholics have therefore little to thank
Wellington and the Tories for, because it is evident from
the Duke's own words, that he was seeking the interests'
not of the tenantry or the masses of the Irish people, but
of the landlords — " the Irish nobility and gentry." King
George IV. resisted the measure to the utmost, and on one
occasion, after promising his signature to the bill, sen^
to say that the measure gave more than he expected, and
he should retract his promise. The Duke of Wellington
was the only man in the Ministry who could squeeze this
recalcitrant monarch into consenting to keep his promise

* Shaw-Lefevre — " Peel and O'Connell," p. 92.

io8

and sign the bill. This the Duke only accomplished by
threatening to resign, and leave the throne to face the
horrors of a revolution.

Peel, in his place in Parliament, said in justification
of his consenting to the bill: — "I have for years
attempted to maintain the exclusion of the Roman
Catholics from Parliament and the high offices of the
State. I do not think it was an unnatural or unreasonable
struggle. I resign it in consequence of the conviction
that it can be no longer advantageously maintained ; from
believing that there are not adequate materials or sufficient
instruments for its permanent or effectual continuance. I
yield therefore to a moral necessity which I cannot control,
unwilling to push resistance to a point which might en-
danger the establishments that I wish to defend." Was
there a greater confession of impotence to resist the moral
force of justice ever made by a responsible statesman
than this.

The letter of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had
done much to decide these statesmen, for he saw that to
delay the measure meant rebellion, and wrote of the
agitation — " You may put to death thousands ; you may
suppress it ; but it will only be to put off the day of com-
promise, and in the meantime the country is still more
impoverished, and the minds of the people are, if possible,
still more alienated."

These words are full of meaning at the present time,
when Nationalist leaders are crowded into prisons and
compelled, by sheer brute force, to wear the felon's garb.

Compare the language of Lord Eldon with that of
Dr. Arnold. The nobleman says : — " If a Roman Catholic
is ever admitted to form part of the Legislature, or to hold

10^

any of the great offices of the State, from that moment
the sun of Great Britain is set for ever." Did ever
bigotry inspire more senseless frothing than this.

The noble-hearted Educationalist, whose work at
Rugby will live for ever in the memory of the English
people, writes in a far different strain. He says: — "It
is the direct duty of every Englishman to support the
claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, even at the
hazard of injuring the Protestant Establishment : because
those claims cannot be rejected without great injustice ;
and it is a want of faith in God and an unholy zeal to
think that He can be served by injustice, or to guard
against contingent evil by committing certain sin."

Emancipation Secured at last.

Daniel O'Connell once said that if emancipation
was not given in a proper spirit, it had better not be given
at all, and that unless it was done heartily, and cordially
it would only give the Irish additional power, and leave
them a stimulant for exciting it. That it was not given
in a proper spirit is clear. It was a concession to neces-
sity, and showed the failure of physical force to withstand
the moral power of a righteous cause. Millions of persons
— three to one — signed petitions against it. All the old
women of the country of ^' both sexes'''' were alarmed at
what they considered to be the opening of the flood-
gates to the inrush of the Papacy, and they hurried to erect
paper barriers, which they hoped would stem the waters.
But in spite of all, the bill was carried in the House of
Commons by 353 votes to 180, and in the House of Lords
by 213 to 109. The Tories loudly protested their antipa-
thy to it, and declared that they only voted by the
compulsion of Wellington's necessities, and that theyreluc-

tantly shouted "Aye." The bill came too late to awake
generous sympathies in the Irish nature. The delay of
reform, the terrible procrastination in yielding to just
claims left a sense of embitterment against the Govern-
ment in the minds of the people of Ireland, and prevented
the growth of good feeling and of contentment in their
hearts. They attributed the delay not to necessity, but to
the opposition of men whose interests were thought to
be bound up with the maintenance of the laws that repres-
sed the national life and the national freedom. And they
were correct in their thinking, for during all the earlier
years of the century English Government was con-
ducted in the interests solely of the wealthier classes. The
representation of the country in Parliament was a miserable
burlesque. The elections were carefully arranged farces.
Everything in Government was tested by the touchstone
of the landlords' interests, and popular measures were
persistently thwarted, or toned down so as to be rendered
harmless to the holders of property. The reformers
had to press their way through the serried ranks of Tory
squires and noblemen, and had it not been for the
sacrificing toil of Liberal leaders, the serfdom of the
English masses, as well as of the Irish Catholics, would
have remained a blot on English civilization in the 19th
century. The consequence of this Government of Ireland
from Westminster by a majority 'of representatives of the
" Classes" was a series of constant changes in the Irish ad-
ministration. Every Government had its new Lord Lieuten-
ant and Chief Secretary for Ireland, so that just as a man was
beginning to understand the Irish problem, he was re-
moved, and his successor had to learn the question afresh,
and was at the mercy of the permanent officials who
were all place-men and protesta>nts, and were themselves

Ill

directed by the members of the bar and the puppets of
the drawing-rooms, for these by threatening social ostracism
were able to effectually appal the underlings of Dublin
Castle, who were inclined to sympathise with Irish Catho-
licism or Irish Nationalism.

Thomas Drummond's Work.

Well might Croke describe all this "as a quicksand
Government that swallows in its fluctuations every venture
of reform." One name must however be honoured for the
work done by him who bore it in the interests of religious
and political equality. It is the name of Thomas Drum-
mond, who was Under Secretary for Ireland during the
time that Lord Morpeth was Chief Secretary, and
Lord Mulgrave — afterwards Normanby — was Viceroy.
During the years 1835 to 1839, he was the life of Irish
Government, and dealt with impartial hand with all
classes of the people. His record is one of the finest on
the roll of Irish Secretaryships, and in consequence
of his zeal in endeavouring to secure an improvement
in Irish affairs, he undermined his constitution, and
brought about his premature death.

It was he, who, in a letter addressed to the Lord
Lieutenant in reply to one sent him by some Irish
magistrates, gave utterance to the well-known aphorism.
'' Property has its duties as well as its rights," and declared
further, "To the neglect of these duties in times past
is mainly to be ascribed that diseased state of society
in which such crimes (agrarian — referred to in the letter of
the magistrates sent to the Lord Lieutenant) take their
rise, and it is not in the enactment or enforcement of
statutes of extraordinary severity, but chiefly in the better
and more faithful performance of those duties, and t|ic;

I 12

more enlightened and humane exercise of those rights,
that a permanent remedy for such disorders is to be
sought.

Happy would it have been had Ireland been favoured
with a larger number of officials of this stamp, but un-
fortunately it was as Sidney Smith said, ** Ireland was
governed for ten or twelve Orange families, who had been
sucking the blood of the country a hundred years," and
secretarys like Thomas Drummond could not be tolerated
by these men.

The Opinion of "Unionists." Mr. Lecky's
Statements.

The removal of the Irish Parliament from College
Green, and the su»bstitution of an executive which was not
in accord with the majority of the people, were events of
national importance, and the consequence may be traced
in the histories of both countries. Ireland had removed
from it what Mr. Lecky calls **the safety-valve of the
nation," and malcontents were enabled to lay the blame of
all the miseries of the people at the doors of English mis-
government. It took away the healthiest expression of
public opinion by which the grievances of the nation
could be set forth, and it left the Irish representation a
continuous minority in a Parliament which understood but
little of the needs of Ireland, and which did not seem
anxious to listen to the cries of the poorest sections of
the Irish people. After seventy years of trial, Mr Lecky
says, '* the Imperial Parliament allays no discontent, and
it attracts no affection." The removal of the Irish Parlia-
ment was a decided disadvantage to the national life, and
was unjustifiable as a matter of political expediency. The
testimonvof those who are main advocates of Legislative

1^3

Union is opposed to their cause, and may be quoted
against their case.

Mr. Lecky says* : — " In truth, the harmonious co-
operation of Ireland with England depends much less
upon the framework of the institutions of the former
country, than upon the dispositions of its people, and upon
the classes who guide its political life. With a warm and
loyal attachment to the connection pervading the nation,
the largest amount of self-government might be safely
conceded, and the most defective political arrangement
might prove innocuous. This is the true cement of
nations, and no change, however plausible in theory, can
be really advantageous which contributes to diminish it,
Theorists may argue that it would bl better for Ireland to
become, in every respect, a province of England ; they
may contend that a union of legislatures, accompanied by
a fusion of characters, and identification of hopes, interests
and desires, would strengthen the empire, but as a matter
of fact, this is not what was effected in 1800. The mea-
sure of Pitt centralized, but it did not unite, or rather, by
uniting the legislatures it divided the nations." Mr. Lecky
also shows the opinion expressed by many of the
ablest and most loyal men in Ireland, by quoting a state-
ment of Lord Claremont's to the effect that the Act of
Union ** would, more than any other measure contribute
to the separation of the two countries, the perpetual con-
nection of which is one of the warmest wishes of my
heart."

Mr. Lecky also says : — *' In a country where the
sentiment of nationality was as intense as in any part of
Europe, it destroyed the national Legislature contrary to

* " Leaders of Public Opinion," pp. 192-195. Quoted in
'•Hand-Rook to Home Rule."

114

the manifest wish of the people, and by means so corrupt,
treacherous, and shameful that they are never likely to be
forgotten. In a country where, owing to the religious
difference, it was peculiarly necessary that a vigorous
lay public opinion should be fostered to dilute or restrain
the sectarian spirit, it suppressed the centre and organ of
political life, directed the energies of the community into
channels of sectarianism, drove its humours inwards, and
thus began a perversion of public opinion which has almost
destroyed the elements of political progress."

Mr. Lecky's arguments are more logical and consis-
tent than his actions, and it can scarcely be conceived that
the man who uttered these words with the force of a
strong conviction, coujd ever be found in the ranks of a
party pledged to maintain the system thus denounced.
That it is unwise to ignore the claims of nationality has
been proved again and again. It was this which inspired
the struggles of Kossuth in Hungary, and Kosciusko in
Poland, and it is the suppression of this by English Govern-
ments and armies, which has lain at the root of Irish
disaffection and discontent. One of the worst results
of the Union has been the identification of government
with injustice, the weakening of law, and the consequent
employment of force, to supply what in more harmonious
conditions would have been freely given by the people.
Mr. Lecky shows that in the miserable government of
Ireland. by English statesmen and a privileged legislature,
we may see the cause of the diminution of legal force. He
says, speaking of the 1 8th century and its Penal laws : —
"The relation of classes was permanently vitiated ; for
almost all the proprietary of the country belonged to
one religion, while, the great majority of their tenants
were of another. The Catholics excluded from almost

115

every possibility of eminence, deprived of their natural
leaders, and consigned by the Legislature to utter ignorance,
soon sank into the condition of broken and dispirited
helots. A total absence of industrial virtues, a cower-
ing and abject deference to authority, a recklessness about
the future, a love of secret illegal combinations became
general among them. Above all, they began to regard
law as merely the expression of force, and its moral weight
was utterly destroyed. For the greater part of a century,
the main object of the Legislature was to extirpate a
religion by the encouragement of the worst, and the
punishment of some of the best qualities of our nature.
Its rewards were reserved for the informer, for the hypo-
crite, for the undutiful son, or for the faithless wife. Its
penalties were directed against religious constancy and
the honest discharge of ecclesiastical duty." " It would
indeed be scarcely possible to conceive a more infamous
system of legal tyranny than that which, in the middle of
the 1 8th century, crushed every class, and almost every
interest in Ireland."

Mr. Goldwin Smith's Views.

And if this be true of the i8th century, still more is it
true of the present one when Coercion Acts have had to
be used to cowe and overpower the freedom-loving sons
of Ireland. Mr. Goldwin Smith may supplement Mr.
Lecky, for he says, referring to the land system so rigour-
ously maintained by the English Governments : — " How
many centuries of a widely different training have the
English people gone through in order to acquire their
boasted love of law." And again referring to the White-
boy tribunals, he says : — ** We have seen how much the law
and th© ministers of the law have done to deserve the

ii6

peasant's love. We have seen too in what successive
guises property had presented itself to his mind : first as
open rapine ; then as robbery carried on through the
roguish technicalities of an alien code ; finally, as legal-
ized and systematic oppression. Was it possible that he
should have formed so aff*ectionate a reverence either for
law or property as would be proof against the pressure of
starvation." And again, he says : — " A people cannot be
expected to love and reverence oppression because it is
consigned to the Statute-book and called law."

In a later work, wiitten in 1867, Mr. Goldwin Smith
completed his argument, by saying:— "The Irish legis-
lation of the last forty years, notwithstanding the adoption
of some remedial measures, has failed through the in-
diff'erence of Parliament to the sentiments of Irishmen ;
and the harshness of English public opinion has embittered
the efi"ects on Irish feeling of the indiff"erence of Parlia-
ment. Occasionally a serious eff"ort has been made by an
English Statesman to induce Parliament to approach Irish
questions in that spirit of sympathy, and that anxious
desire to be just, without which a Parliament in London
cannot legislate wisely for Ireland. Such efforts have
hitherto met with no response ; it is too much to hope
that it will be otherwise in the year now opening." But in
the year just opening (1868), Mr. Smith might have hoped*
for Mr. Gladstone then commenced his great ameliorative
work ; and it is sad to think that Mr. Smith was destined
to be found among the opponents of the man who was
endeavouring to put into a concrete and beneficent form,
the abstract reasonings of Mr. Goldwin Smith.

But Mr. Smith is more succinct in his arguments — for
speaking of the Fenian movement, he says: — "The
Fenian movement is not religious nor radically economical,

(though no doubt it has in it a socialistic element), but
national, and the remedy of it must be one which cures
national discontent. This is the great truth which the
English people have to lay to heart."

^Speaking of the land question he says: — "The land
question, no doubt, lies nearest to the heart of the matter,
and it is the great key to Irish history in the past ; but I
do not believe that even this is fundamental."

He then states what is " fundamental."!

"The real root of the disaffection which exhibits
itself at present in the guise of Fenianism, and which has
been suddenly kindled into flame, by the arming of the Irish
in the American civil war, but which existed before in a
nameless and smouldering state, is, as I believe, the want
of national institutions, of a national capital, of any objects
of national reverence and attachment, and consequently of
anything deserving to be called national life. The English
Crown and Parliament the Irish have never learnt, nor
have they had any chance of learning, to love, or to regard
as national, notwithstanding the share which was given
them, too late, in the representation. The greatness of
England is nothing to them. Her history is nothing, or
worse. The success of Irishmen in London consoles
the Irish in Ireland no more than the success of Italian
adventurers in foreign countries (which was very remark-
able) consoled the Italian people. The drawing off of
Irish talent, in fact, turns to an additional grievance in
their minds. Dublin is a modern Tara, a metropolis
from which the glory has departed ; and the viceroyalty,
though it pleases some of the tradesmen, fails altogether
to satisfy the people. * In Ireland we can make no appeal

* Smith's " Irish Question," pp. 3 to 7. Quoted in " The Hand Book of Honie
Rule," pages 183 & 184. \ Ibid, p. 183.

ii8 -^

to patriotism, we can have no patriotic sentiments in our
school books, no patriotic emblems in our schools, because
in Ireland everything patriotic is rebellious.' These were
the words uttered in my hearing, not by a complaining
demagogue, but by a desponding statesman. They seemed
to be pregnant with fatal truths.

"If the craving for national institutions, and the dis-
affection bred in this void of the Irish people's heart,
seem to us irrational and even insane, in the absence of
any more substantial grievance, we ought to ask ourselves
what would become of our patriotism if we had no national
institutions, no objects of national loyalty and reverence
even though we might be pretty well governed, at least in
intention, by a neighbouring people whom we regarded as
aliens, and who, in fact, regarded us pretty much in the
same light. Let us first judge ourselves fairly, and then
judge the Irish, remembering always that they are more
imaginative and sentimental, and need some centre of
national feeling and affection more than ourselves."

Mr. Dicey's Admissions.

Does not all this prove that Mr. Pitt's experiment of
1800 had failed, and that the leaders of the so-called
Unionists have acknowledged the folly and impotency of
governing Ireland without her consent, and in governing
her from Westminster. The statistics which we shall quote
later, will still further prove this, and if we want further
testimony, it is supplied in the writings of the latest cham-
pion of " Unionism," Mr, Dicey, who writes : — " Eighty-six
years have elapsed since the conclusion of the Treaty of
Union between England and Ireland. The two countries
do not yet for-m an united nation. The Irish people are, if
not more wretched (for the whole European world has

119

made progress, and Ireland with it), yet more conscious of
wretchedness, and Irish disaffection to England is, if not
deeper, more widespread than in 1800. An Act meant by
its authors to be a source of the prosperity and concord
which, though slowly, followed upon the Union with
Scotland, has not made Ireland rich, has not put an end
to Irish lawlessness, has not terminated the feud between
Protestants and Cathohcs, has not raised the position of
Irish tenants, has not taken away the causes of Irish dis-
content, and has, therefore not removed Irish disloyalty.
This is the indictment which can fairly be brought against
the Act of Union."*

And again, '* The Act of Union did not lead to
national unity, and a measure which appeared on the face
of it (though the appearance, it must be admitted, was
delusive), to be a copy of the law which bound England
and Scotland into a common country, inspired by common
patriotism, produced conspiracy and agitation, and, at last,
placed England and Ireland further apart, morally, than
they stood at the beginning of the century. The Treaty
of Union, it was supposed missed its mark because it was
not combined with Catholic Emancipation. The Catholics
were emancipated, but emancipation, instead of pro-
ducing loyalty, brought forth the cry for repeal The
Repeal movement ended in failure, but its death gave
birth to the attempted rebellion in 1848. Suppressed
rebellion begot Fenianism, to be followed in its turn
by the agitation for Home Rule. The movement relies,
it is said, and there is truth in the assertion, on constitu-
tional methods for obtaining redress. But constitutional

* Quoted in " Handbook of Home Rule," page i88.
Jrlr. Dicey's "England's Case against FJome Rule," page 128,

120

measures are supplemented by boycotting, by obstruction,
by the use of dynamite. A century of reform has given
us Mr. Parnell instead of Grattan, and it is more than pos-
sible that Mr. Parnell may be succeeded by leaders in
whose eyes Mr. Davitt's policy may appear to be tainted
with moderation. No doubt, in each case the failure of
good measures admits, like every calamity in public or
private life, of explanation, and after the event it is easy
to see why, for example, the Poor Law, when extended to
Ireland, did not produce even the good effects such as they
are which in England are to be set against its numerous
evils ; or why an emigration of unparalleled proportions
has diminished population without much diminishing
poverty ; why the disestablishment of the Anglican Church
has increased rather than diminished the hostility to England
of the Catholic priesthood ; or why two Land Acts have
not contented Irish farmers. It is easy enough, in short,
and this without having any recourse to theory of race, and
without attributing to Ireland either more or less of origi-
nal sin than falls to the lot of humanity, to see how it is
that imperfect statesmanship — and all statesmanship, it
should be remembered, is imperfect — has failed in obtain-
ing good results at all commensurate with its generally
good intentions. Failure, however, is none the less failure
because its causes admit of analysis. It is no defence to
bankruptcy that an insolvent can, when brought before the
Court, lucidly explain the errors which resulted in disastrous
speculations. The failure of English statesmanship, ex-
plain it as you will, has produced the one last and greatest
evil which misgovernment can cause. It has created
hostility to the law in the minds of the people. The law
cannot work in Ireland because the classes whose opinion
in other countries supports the actions of the courts, are

121

in Ireland, even when not law-breakers, in full sympathy
with law-breakers."*

** There exists in Europe no country so completely at
unity with itself as Great Britain. Fifty years of reform
have done their work, and have removed the discontents,
the divisions, the disaffections, and the conspiracies which
marked the first quarter, or the first half of this century.
Great Britain, if left to herself, could act with all the force,
consistency, and energy given by unity of sentiment and
community of interests. The destruction and the uncer-
tainty of our political aims, the feebleness and inconsistency
with which they are pursued, arise, in part at least, from
the connection with Ireland. Neither Englishmen nor
Irishmen are to blame for the fact that it is difficult for com-
munities differing in historical associations and in political
conceptions to keep step together in the path of progress.
For other evils arising from the connection the blame must
rest on English Statesmen. All the inherent vices of party
government, all the weaknesses of the parliamentary system,
all the evils arising from the perverse notion that reform
ought always to be preceded by a period of lengthy and
more than half factitious agitation met by equally factitious
resistance, have been fostered and increased by the inter-
action of Irish and English politics. No one can believe
that the inveterate habit of ruling one part of the United
Kingdom on principles which no one would venture to
apply to the government of any other part of it, can have
produced anything but the most injurious effect on the
stability of our Government and the character of our public

men

»»#

''The advocates of Home Rule find, by far, their
strongest arguments for influencing English opinion, in

* Dicey, " England's Case against Home Rule," pages 72-74

122

the proofs which they produce that England, no less than
Ireland, has suffered from a political arrangement under
which legal union'has failed to secure moral union."*

Irish nationality could not tolerate the suppression of
the national legislature, and the subsequent Government
of Ireland has shown that the Nationalists, under Grattan,
were right in their objection to the Act of Union. Since
then, the intolerance and despotism of English Govern-
ments have helped to strengthen the national spirit and
have added fuel to the national passion for freedom. The
more fiercely the elements have beaten against the nation-
ality of the Irish people, the more securely it has taken root
in the Irish mind.

Mr. Gladstone's Views of Nationality.

Mr. Gladstone says, in his article on " Lessons in
the 1 8th Century," p. 279, Handbook to Home Rule: —
" This is the point at which we may best learn the second
and the greatest lesson taught by the history of Ireland
in the eighteenth century. It is this, that, awful as is the
force of bigotry, hidden under the mask of religion, but
fighting for plunder and for power with all the advantages
of possession, of prescription, and of extraneous support,
there is a David that can kill this Goliath. That con-
quering force lies in the principle of nationality."

" It was the growing sense of nationality that prompted
the Irish Parliament to develop its earlier struggles for
privilege on the narrow ground into a general contest for
freedom, civil and religious, on a ground as broad as
Ireland, nay, as humanity at large. If there be such things
as contradictions in the world of politics, they are to be
found in nationality on the one side, and bigotry of all kinds

* Dicey— " England's Case Against Home Rule."

123

on the other, but especially religious bigotry, which is of
all the most baneful. Whatever is given to the first of
these two is lost to the second. I speak of a reasonable
and a reasoning, not of a blind and a headstrong nation-
ality ; of a nationality which has regard to circum-
stances and traditions, and which only requires that
all relations, of incorporation or of independence, shall be
adjusted to them according to the laws of Nature's own
enactment. Such an nationality was the growth of the
last century in Ireland. As each Irishman began to feel
that he had a country, to which he belonged, and which
belonged to him, he was, by a true process of nature,
drawn more and more into brotherhood and into the
sense of brotherhood with those who shared the
allegiance and the property, the obligation and the
heritage. And this idea of country once well conceived,
presents itself as a very large idea, and as a framework
for most other ideas, so as to supply the basis of a common
life. Hence it was that, on the coming of Lord Fitzwilliam,
the whole generous emotion of the country leapt up with
one consent, and went forth to meet him. Hence it was
that religious bigotry was no longer an appreciable
factor in the public life of Ireland. Hence it was that on
his recall, and in order to induce acquiescence in his re-
call, it became necessary to divide again the host that
had welcomed him — to put one part of it in array as
Orangemen, who were to be pampered and inflamed ; and
to quicken the self-consciousness of another and larger
mass by repulsion and proscription, by stripping Roman
Catholics of arms in the face of license and of cruelty,
and, finally, by clothing the extreme of lawlessness with
the forms of law."

124

The Irish Famine.
But if anything more is needed in the history of Ireland
to show the futility and folly of governing Ireland from
Westminster, it is supplied in the terrible story of the
Irish famine. We can scarcely, in this land, estimate the
awful sufferings of the people during the years when
the famine raged. The Government seemed helpless.
O'Connell's repeal agitation was paralyzed. The high
hopes of the people were checked. The warm impulses
springing up in the hearts of the Irish, as they saw the
day of freedom drawing nearer, were chilled by the blight-
ing, withering seasons that destroyed the chief staiF of
life. Whole districts were depopulated. The blight came
like deadly nightshade, poisoning the hearts and minds of
the people, and leaving behind a terrible legacy of hate.
Painful misunderstanding and hostile recriminations have
sprung up between the two countries in relation to this
subject.* The English people talk of the sympathy mani-
fested by England, and the generous contributions which
were made to stem the famine. The Irish talk of the
delay, pitiful inaction, and criminal mismanagement of
the English Cabinet and the Dublin Executive. Everything
in the shapeof relief was hindered, by prejudice, ignorance,
and short-sighted economy. It was a stupendous calamity^
which the ordinary machinery of the Poor Law system
was unable to cope with. What was needed was prompt
and liberal local administration of relief out of government
resources. The ports were locked up, and protection held
the keys, and kept the ship filled with American supplies
outside. The food resources of the people — the corn
grown in Irish fields was sent out of the country, to be
sold for the benefit of the landlords, while the poor

*A. M. Sullivan's "New Ireland,"

125

peasantry were starving by thousands on the road-side.
English officers and officials strangled every measure of
relief with red tape.

Official Investigations.

The Government went in for official investigations,
at a time when Americans and foreigners were sending
ship-loads of grain. The establishment of huge soup
kitchens was tried to arrest the famine fiend. The people
struggled to reach the soup, some fell to the ground and
were trampled to death. The madness of hunger overcame
the tenderness of sympathy. The weak waited and died,
while the stronger reached the food and were saved from
death. The Irish Poor Law system completely broke down
under the strain.

When the families were separated at the workhouse
door, the scenes were heart-rending. Fathers, mothers,
and children were parted to meet no more in this world.
They abandoned hope when they entered there, for the
famine fever was in ev^ery ward, the air was loaded with
disease, and the poor starving ones knew that they were
being separated to die alone. Oh ! it was terrible !
unendurable ! ! Poor widows, whose husbands had starved,
clasped their childen to their breasts and cried, ** I cannot
part with them, — if I am to give them up, I'll not come in,
— I'll beg the world with them, — we'll die together." But,
inexorable officialism said, "You must part or starve out-
side ;" and death said, " If you part you shall not meet
again !"

Mr. TuKE says :* — ** We visited the poorhouse at
Glenties, which is in a dreadful state ; the people were, in
fact, half starved, and only half clothed. They had not

* " Transactions of the Relief Committe of Friends," quoted by O'Connor.

126

sufficient food in the house for the day's supply. Some
were leaving the house, preferring to die in their own
hovels rather than in the poor-house. Their bedding con-
sisted ol dirty straw, in which they were laid in rows, or
on the floor— even as many as six persons being crowded
under one rug. The living and the dying were stretched
side by side beneath the same miserable covering." The
general effect of all this is summed up thus pithily but
completely in the report of the Poor Law Commissioners
for 1R46: "In the present state of things nearly every
person admitted is a patient ; separation of the sick, by
reason of their number, becomes impossible ; disease
spreads, and by rapid transition the workhouse is changed
into one large hospital."

People committed petty larcenies in order to be sent
to gaol, for they were starving outside. But the gaols
were also homes of pestilence.

Dr. Browne wrote of Castlebar Gaol : — " Our county
gaol was crowded to more than double its capacity, those •
committed being in a state of nudity, filth, and starvation.
Typhus broke out, and by the end of April we were in a
state of actual pestilence. Every hospital servant was
attacked, and from our wretched overcrowded state the .
mortality was fearful — fully forty per cent. ; * * * *
not a few of those committed were inmates of the fever
wards a few hours after committal."

The Census Commissioners reported that, *' Taking
the reported deaths from fever alone, between the begin-
ning of 1846 and the end of i849, and assuming the
mortality at one in ten, which is the very lowest calcu-
lation, and far below what we believe to have occurred,
above a million and a half, or 1,595,040 persons, being 4* 11
of the population in 1851, must have suffered from fever

127

during that period. But no pen has recorded the number
of the forlorn and starving who perished by the wayside or
in the ditches, or of the mournful groups, sometimes of
whole families, who lay down and died, one after another,
upon the floor of their miserable cabin, and so remained
uncoffined and unburied till chance unveiled the appal-
ling scene."

In 1847 °^^ fifteenth of the medical staff" died. A
quarter of a million perished from fever alone, while the
mortality was further swelled to gigantic proportions by
smallpox, dysentry, and other epidemics. Hinged coffins
were used, and the dead fell uncoffined into the graves,
while the coffin was brought back to be used again and
again.

Landlords and Famine.

The absentee landlords, as usual, did not see the
misery. The resident ones did what they could to stem
the disaster, and many incurred debts that afterwards
brought them to ruin. Some landlords were, however,
almost heartless ; and one of them, the Duke of Norfolk,
made himself notorious by suggesting to the starving and
distressed people, the use of a certain curry powder, of
which he would freely give them the recipe, and by which
they could stave off' the pangs of hunger.

A Royal Duke's Compassion.

But even this is surpassed in brutality by a royal duke,
described by Daniel O'Connell as " the son of a king, the
brother of a king, the uncle of a monarch." This lofty
personage said, " Ireland is not in so bad a state as has
been represented. * *' *•'* *' I understand that rotten
potatoes and seaweed, and even grass, properly mixed,

128

aflford a very wholesome food. We all know that Irishmen
can live upon anything, and there is plenty of grass in
the fields, even if the potato crop should fail." Surely
this prince must have been referring to a royal personage,
who, in Babylon, was removed from his throne and com-
pelled to ** eat grass like an ox."

But the Government was slow to believe in the reality
of the famine, and when it was made clear to them, they
were tardy and unprepared. The Evening Mail said, in
1 845 : — '* The apprehensions of a famine are unfounded, and
are merely made the pretence for withholding the payment
of rent." Again, it said, "There is a sufficiency, an abun-
dance of sound potatoes for the wants of the people."

Blindness of Politicians.

Lord George Bentinck said that ** The potatoe famine
in Ireland was a gross delusion — a more gross delusion
had never been practised upon any country by any
government." ** The cry of famine was a mere pretence
for a party object." Lord Stanley said : " Famine in
Ireland was a vision — a baseless vision."

Bills were passed to remedy the misery but they were
unsuitable to the conditions of the case. With a Coercion
Bill in operation, such measures as relief works. Labour
Rate Acts, and soup kitchens were too inadequate. In
1846, when the Relief Works were commenced, the famine
had already made frightful progress, and wretched and
emaciated people, just alive, tottered with their diminished
strength to build roads and make cuttings, that are to-day
covered with moss and grass, and are a standing monu-
ment of the gigantic folly of the government remedies for
a famine-stricken people.*

* See A. M. Sullivan's " New Ireland."

129

In J 847 the miserable narrow arrangements had to be
thrown aside, and the Government, by extraordinary means,
had to deal with an extraordinary crisis. But they were,
as usual, too late, and a million of deaths, which might
have been prevented, lay at the doors of English mis-
government.

In 1835 the Poor Law Inquiry reported that 2,235,000
persons were out of work, and in distress, for thirty weeks
in the year.

The Devon Commission declared *' It would be im-
possible to describe adequately the sufferings and privations
which the cottiers and labourers and their families in most
parts of the country endure." '* Their cabins are seldom
a protection against the weather." " A bed or a blanket
is a rare luxury.'' " In many districts their only food is
the potato, their only beverage water."*

Mr. J. S. Mill sums up the question by writing of the
Irish landlords as follows: — "Returning nothing tothe soil,
they consume its whole produce, minus the potatoes
strictly necessary to keep the inhabitants from dying of
famine."!

But this was before the pinch of famine came. We
may judge, therefore, of the more terrible destitution
which afterwards existed, when millions were sacrificed at
the altar of the landlords' interests, by the restrictive
legislation of a House of Parliament comprised chiefly of
landlords. Well might Daniel O'Connell say, " If we had
a domestic parliament, would not the ports be thrown
open — would not the abundant crops, with which Heaven
has blessed her, be kept for the people of Ireland — and

* Quoted by T. P. O'Conner, " Parnell Movement," p, 24.
i Quoted by Mr. Healy, " Why is there a Land Question ?" p. 55.

130

would not the Irish Parliament be more active even than
the Belgian Parliament to provide for the people food and
employment."

Mr. T. P. O'Connor says :* — " The measures pro-
posed by the Government for dealing with the distress
were, first the importation of corn on a lowered duty
through the repeal of the Corn Laws ; and, secondly, the
advance of two sums of ^^50,000, one to the landlords for
the drainage of their lands, and the other for public works.
The ridiculous disproportion of these sums to the magni-
tude of the calamity was proved before very long ; but to
all representations the Government replied in the worst
and haughtiest spirit of official optimism. 'Instructions
have been given,' said Sir James Graham, 'on the respon-
sibility of the Government to meet any emergency.' Only
one good measure was covered by the generous self-com-
placency of this round assertion. Under a Treasury
minute of December 19, 1845, the Ministry had instructed
Messrs. Baring and Co. to purchase /'loo.ooo worth of
Indian corn. This they introduced secretly into Ireland,
and its distribution proved most timely."

The Food Supply and the Starving Peasantry.

Reference has been made to the good crops of wheat
and oats during the famine time, and to the fact that these
crops were largely exported while the peasantry were
dying of starvation. Mr. T. P. O'Connor says: — "Side
by side with the fields of blighted potatoes, in 1845, were
fields of abundant oats." The Mark Lane Express
reported that in one week, during 1845, 16,000 quarters of
oats were exported from Ireland to London." Lord John
Russell, in 1847, wrote to the Duke of Leinster as fol-

* " Parnell Movement," p. 27.

131

lows: — " Everyone who travels through Ireland, observes
the large stacks of corn, which are the produce of the
late harvest."

John Mitchell gives a case of a captain who saw at
Rio Janeiro, in South America, a \»essel laden with Irish
corn, at the very moment when the people of Ireland
were vainly crying for food. In similar circumstances,
Belgium, Holland, Russia, and even Turkey had closed
their ports and kept their corn to feed their starving popu-
lation. Daniel O'Connell urged the English Parliament
to follow this wise precedent, but as this would have
interfered with the landlords' rents and gains, the Govern-
ment refused, and the Irish peasants starved. The land
system had to be kept up, if the people died to support it»
Indignation was felt at the heathen customs, which buried
living slaves around the posts of a chiefs dwelling, so as
to keep the edifice secure ; but only smirking complacency
prevailed, as thousands of Irish people were condemned
to starvation in order to perpetuate the land system.

Mr. T. P. O'Connor has placed the argument in a
nutshell, by saying, ''The Irish land system necessitated
the export of food from a starving nation. The Imperial
Parliament was the parent of this land system ; the
Imperial Parliament was then responsible for the starva-
tion which this exportation involved."*

Mr. A. M. Sullivan has written, with a pen inspired
by the deep sympathies of an earnest and conscientious
spirit. He says : — "The first remarkable sign of the havoc
which death was making was the decline and disappearance
of funerals.f He tells the story of a Catholic priest, who
met in Galway, during the famine, a man with a cart
drawn by a donkey, on which there were three coffins,

* "The Parnell Movement," p. 26. t " New Ireland," p. 64.

132

containing the bodies of his wife and two children. When
he reached the churchyard, he was too weak to dig a grave,
and was only able to put a little covering of clay on the
coffins. The next day the priest found ravenous dogs
making a horrid meal ^rom the corpses."*

In some cases parents were obliged to dig the graves
of their dead children ; and in other cases, were too weak
to do so, and were only able, before they laid down by the
side of the corpses to die also, to close the door of their
hovels, so as to prevent the dogs and pigs from entering
and devouring the bodies. Mr. O'Rourke, and Mr. Tuke
give a number of instances, and the former quotes an eye
witness of a scene in Skibbereen, as follows : — ** The
only article that covered the nakedness of the family, that
screened them from the cold, was a piece of coarse packing
stuff, which lay extended alike over the bod|ies of the living
and the corpses of the dead ; which served as the only
defence of the dying, and the winding sheet of the dead."f
Surely in all this there is proof of the break down of the
administration.

Red Tape and the Irish Famine.

Lord John Russell also refused to interfere with the
regular mode by which Indian corn was brought into
Ireland. This was in the interests of the retail traders,
whose shops were so few that the emaciated labourer on
the public works had to walk, in some parts, twenty or
twenty-five miles in order to buy meal for himself and
family. Some of the traders trafficked on the needs and
miseries of the people. Famine prices were charged for
food, and one firm in Cork was reported to have made

* "New Ireland," p. 379. Quoted in " Parnell Movement."
t O'Rourke—" History of the Irish Famine," p. 272.

133

;^4o.ooo> and another £?o,q>oo by speculating in corn.
The Government stores refused to open their doors to the
people until the Autumn, and men and women who had
crawled long distances, were found dead at the doors of
the stores, at which they had knocked in vain, while in
the stiffened grasp of the corpses money was found *

The money earned on Government works, owing to
blunders in the administration, was at times not paid for a
week or a fortnight, and the worker either crept into his hut
to die, or perished by the road-side. Poor shrivelled men,
left their wives and children dying at home, and trudged
often eight miles for a day's work, for which they were
paid 5d., and at times as low as 3d.t And this from a
paternal government, claiming to be enlightened, civilized,
and christian, as well as the wealthiest in Europe.

Mr. O'Connor gives a few quotations from Irish news-
papers, such as "A family of six lived for one week upon the
carcase of an ass, in the parish of Ballymackey, County
Tipperary." *' Great distress in Ulster, — people eating ass
flesh."]:

Epidemics of cholera raged through the country also,
and were followed by other diseases which decimated the
population. In 1 849 the deaths from zymotic diseases, as
reported by the Census Commissioners, reached 123,386.
This in addition to those who succumbed to starvation
and various afflictions induced by privations.

Sir Charles Gavan Duffy shows the way in which
the people were sent out of the country: — "Vast masses
tried to make their way to America. In the year 1845,
74,669 persons emigrated from Ireland ; in 1846 the num-
ber had risen to 105,955 ; during 1847 i* ^^^^ ^^ 215,444.

* " Parnell Movement,'' pp. 24 and 25.
+ " New Ireland," pp. 206 to 225. % " The Parnell Movement."

134

No means were taken to preserve these poor people from
the rapacity of shipowners. The landlords delighted at
getting rid of them, made bargains for their conveyance
wholesale, and at small prices ; and in those days emigrant
ships were ui>der no sanitary restrictions of any effective-
ness. Thus the emigrants, already half-starved and
fever-stricken, were pushed into berths that 'rivalled the
cabins of Mayo, or the fever-sheds of Skibbereen.'
'Crowded and filthy, carrying double the legal number of
passengers, who were ill-fed and imperfectly clothed, and
having no doctor on board, the holds,' says an eye-witness,
•were like the Black Hole of Calcutta, and deaths in
myriads.'"

"The statistics of mortality bear out these words. Of
493 passengers during the year in the Queen, 136 died on
the voyage ; of 552 in the Avon, 236 died ; of 476 in the
Virginius, 267 died; of 440 on the Larch, 108 died and
150 were seriously diseased. 89,783 persons altogether
embarked for Canada in 1847. The Chief Secretary for
Ireland reported with regard to these that 6, 1 00 perished
on the voyage ; 4,100 on their arrival ; 5,200 in hospital ;
1,900 in towns to which they repaired. 'From Grosse
Island up to Port Sarnia, along the borders of our great
river, on the shores of Lakes Ontario and Erie, wherever
the tide of emigration was extended, are to be found one
unbroken chain of graves, where repose fathers, and
mothers, sisters and brothers, in a commingled heap, no
stone marking the spot. Twenty thousand and upwards
have gone down to their graves."*

The people maddened by their despair, rushed to the
ports to secure berths for England. But the Government

* Sir C. G. Duffy's " Four Years of Irish History," pp. 531-532. Quoted in the
" Parnell Movement," pp. 44 and. 45.

135

. requested the owners of steamships to raise their fares for
deck passengers, and thus the already impoverished victim
of eviction and despair, was further fleeced by the desire
of a paternal government.

Emigration.

In 1847. between January 15 and May 4, the Census
Commissioners state that 180,000 Irish exiles were landed
in Liverpool. Between June 15 and August 17 of the
same year, 26,335 arrived in Glasgow from Ireland. "Many
of these were aged people, unfit for labour ; out of 1,150
patients in the Glasgow Fever Hospital at the period, 750
were Iiish."*

**The population of Ireland, by March 30th, 1851, at
the same ratio of increase as that of England and Wales,
would have been 9,018,799 — it was 6,552,385."! The
Census Commissioners calculated ** that the deficit, inde-
pendently of the emigration," in the five famine years,
was 985,366 — nearly a million of people. But those who
emigrated often perished during the voyage. Seventeen per
cent, of the emigrants either died during the passage, or
immediately on their arrival at their destination, so that of
the emigration of 1,180,409, no fewer than 200,668 must
be added to the death roll already stated.

Destruction of Social Customs and Elevating
Institutions.

In addition to all this, the evils wrought in the con-
dition of the country were very numerous. Take the
following testimonies: — "Here are twenty miles of country,
sir, said a dispensary doctor to me, and before the famine
there was not a padlock from end to end of it, Under

♦ "ParnelliMovement," pp. 44-84. f " Parnell Movement," p. 84.

136

the pressure of hunger, ravenous creatures prowled round
barn and storehouse, stealing corn, potatoes, cabbage,
turnips, anything, in a word, that might be eaten. Later
on, the fields had to be watched, gun in hand, or the
seed was rooted up and devoured raw. The state of things
struck a fatal blow at some of the most beautiful traits of
Irish life. It destroyed the simple confidence that bolted
no door ; it banished for ever a custom, which throughout
the island was of universal obligation — the housing for
the night, with cheerful welcome, of any poor wayfarer
who claimed hospitality.

''Fear of 'the fever' even when no apprehension of
robbery was entertained, closed every door, audthe custom
once killed off has not revived. A thousand kindly usages
and neighbourly courtesies were swept away. When sauve
qui pent \\diS resounded throughout a country for three years
of alarm and disaster, human nature becomes contracted
in its sympathies, and 'every one for himself becomes a
maxim of life and conduct long after. The open-handed,
open-hearted ways of the rural population have been visi-
bly affected by the ' Forty-seven ordeal.' Their ancient
sports and pastimes everywhere disappeared, and in many
parts of Ireland have never returned. The outdoor games,
the hurling-match, and the village dance are seen no
more."*

'The famine,' says Gavan Duffy, 'swallowed things
more precious than money and money's worth, or even
than human lives. The temperance reformation, the
political training of a generation, the self-respect, the
purity and generosity which distinguished Irish peasants,
were sorely wasted. Out of the place of the damned, a
sight of such piercing woe was never seen as a Munster

* " New Ireland," pp. 67 and 68.

137

workhouse, with hundreds of a once frank and gallant
yeomanry turned into sullen beasts, wallowing on the floor
as thick as human limbs could pack. Unless, indeed, it
were that other spectacle of the women of a district wait-
ing in pauper congregation around the same edifice for
outdoor relief. New and terrible diseases sprang out of
this violation of the laws of nature. There was soon a
workhouse fever, a workhouse dysentery, a workhouse
opthalmia ; and children, it is said, were growing up idiots
from imperfect nourishment. In eight of the worst poor-
law unions, the contract coffin left the workhouse seventy
times a week with the corpse of a human being. The
opthalmia often carried with it consequences more painful
than death, when it left the sufferer unfit to earn his bread
any more in the world. There were upwards of 2,000
cases of this disease within ten months in the Tipperary
Union, and as many in the Limerick Union. In Tippe-
rary, Sir William Wilde, one of the Census Commissioners,
saw eighty-seven patients whose sight was permanently
damaged, eighteen incurable blind figures, thirty-two who
had lost one eye. In Connaught, where poverty was long
the chronic condition of the country, the famine had
actually created a new race of beggars, bearing only a
distant and hideous resemblance to humanity. Wherever
the traveller went in Galway or Mayo, he met troops of
wild, idle, lunatic-looking paupers wandering over the
country. Grey-headed old men, with faces settled into a
leer of hardened mendicancy, and women filthier and more
frightful than harpies, who at the jingle of a coin on the
pavement swarmed in myriads from unseen places, strug-
gling, screaming, shrieking for their prey like monstrous
and unclean animals. Beggar-children, beggar-girls, with
faces gray and shrivelled, met you everywhere : and women

138

with the more touching and tragic aspect of lingering
shame and self-respect not yet effaced. I saw these
accursed sights, and they are burned into my memory for
ever. Poor, mutilated, and debased scions of a tender,
brave, and pious stock, they were martyrs in the battle of
centuries for the right to live in their own land, and no
Herculaneum or Pompeii covers ruins so memorable to me
as those which lie buried under the fallen roof-trees of an
'Irish extermination.'"*

Clearing the Land.

Some of the landlords seized the opportunity of clear-
ing their lands of distressed tenants. Their inability to
pay the rent, left them at the mercy of inexorable land-
lordism, and their weakness, consequent on insufficient
food, prevented them from keeping a "grip on their home-
steads." The property was cleared of small tenants, and
many of them landing in England, in a destitute and
penniless condition, were compelled to herd together in
the lowest places of our seaports, until the name of the
"Irish settlement" became a name of reproach and con-
tempt among fastidious and respectable people, who lived
in more salubrious neighbourhoods. In addition, these
people were compelled to take labour of the hardest and
most dangerous character, at any price that was offered,
so as to avoid starvation. The result was that the labour-
rate of English workmen was kept in a reduced condition,
and the English artisans and labourers had to bear the
imposition directly induced by the unfeeling conduct of
Irish landlords. The evictions were carried out with great
coarseness and cruelty. In these late years the accounts
of evictions at Bodyke, and elsewhere, have thrown a flood

*Sir C, G. Duffy, Quoted by T. P. O'Connor.—" Parnell Movement," pp. 83 and 84.

139

of light, through the medium of the Press, on the charac-
ter and working of Irish landlordism. But still more
terrible, and heartless, and unjust were evictions carried
out ruthlessly in the days of famine, before the glass of
public observation was directed to the scenes. Unsym-
pathetic evictions threw the tenants into the storm and the
snow in the depth of winter, and the disease germinated
under the Irish hedges, afterwards developed in the English
towns and counties, and compelled the sufferers to apply
for help at English hospitals and workhouses. The rates of
the towns and counties was increased, so that, in addition
to a lessened rate of wages, the English householders had
to pay an increased sum to the rates, to enable Irish land-
lords to clear the land of the human beings who had
cultivated it, and improved its worth. Lord Palmerston
spoke of the evil, and strongly denounced it, but took no
steps to call to justice the landlords, whose action brought
about the death of the poor peasantry. In a speech de-
livered in the House of Commons, he says : — *' The people
were turned out of their houses, without the chance of
obtaining a home ; were driven to perish on the road-side,
or to eke out a hungry existence as squatters on the fringe
of a bog, or on the outskirts of some neighbouring town.
This is a great grievance. Cases have occurred where
landlords have done this to a great extent. I hope the
landlords will abstain from exercising that power which
the law gives them, and that, by showing a little more
consideration to the peasantry whom they find on their
estates, they will seek to do away with that grievance,
which is expressed in the somewhat absurb term of ** fixity
of tenure."

140

An Englishman's Opinions.
In 1846, Mr. PouLETT Scrope, an English M.P.,
spoke clearly on the question, and pointed out the respon-
sibility of the landlords who condemned their tenants to
death, and who committed wholesale murders in the name
of law. "Remember, life is destroyed in Ireland in other
ways than by the bullet of the assassin. Life is taken in
Ireland by the slow agonies of want, and disease engen-
dered by want, where human beings are deprived (however
legally) of the only means of living, and no resource
offered them in its place. When a landlord clears his
estate by driving from their homes hundreds of poor
tenants who have no other possible source of refuge, does
he not as effectually destroy their lives (at least many of
them) as if he shot them at once ? It would be a mercy
to do so in compassion. Do you deny that the lives of the
peasantry are unprotected by law — that they are obliged to
protect themselves by these criminal outrages ? I ask you
if, since these very discussions began, we have not had
proofs — multiplied proofs — of the mode in which the
landlords of Ireland are decimating the people of Ireland.?
Ay, in the midst of fever and famine, was not a whole
village razed by Mr. Gerrard — 400 souls turned out upon
the highway — not allowed even to rest in the roadside
ditches ? Was not another village razed by the Marquis
of Waterford ? Another, I believe, by Mr. Clarke, of
Nenagh, who was murdered ; another by Mr. Pierce
Carrick, who was murdered for the same intention, * * *
Now, I ask, what becomes of these ejected wretches,
whose houses are pulled down, who are driven forth from
the land where they were born and bred, hunted even out
of the road-side ditches, when they take shelter there, as
was literally the case in the Gerrard clearances ? Where

are they to go ? How are they to live ? * * * If they
squat on another landlord's estate, they are driven off
again as nuisances, pests — as people, in one word, who
have no right to exist. ^ * ijr- * j ^sk, what becomes
of them ? Why, we know, on the best authority, they
wander to the big towns and try to live by beggary ^' * *
Is not an ejectment of this kind tantamount to a sentence
of death on a small farmer or cottier, whose only chance
of living and maintaing his family is the occupation of a
bit of land ? Can you wonder at his retaliating on him
whom he feels to be his oppressor ? Or can you wonder
that thousands, who know themselves to be exposed to
this fate, every day contrive to save themselves from it by
a system of outrage and intimidation ?"*

How Evictions were Carried Out.
Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, after quoting the above, says :^
'* A specific case of this kind, where the people of a whole
village were ejected, was brouht before the House of Com-
mons by Sir Robert Peel, on the official report of a Major
McKee, to the Poor Law Board. * It would appear,' he
said, ' from the evidence recorded, that the forcible eject-
ments were illegal, that previous notice had not been served,
and that the ejectments were perpetrated under circum-
stances of great cruelty. The time ohosen was, for the
greater part, nightfall on the eve of the new year. The
occupiers were forced out of their houses, with their
helpless children, and left exposed to the cold on a bleak
Western shore, on a stormy winter's night ; some of the
children were sick ; the parents implored that they might
not be exposed, and that their houses might be left till the
morning ; these prayers for mercy were in vain, and many
of them have since died.' "

* " Peel and O'Connell."

142

"Peel, in commenting on this, said: — *I know that the
law is powerless in procuring redress in such cases ; but
I know also that the mere statement of the facts in the
House of Commons, accompanied with the expression of
such feelings as can alone be excited where such facts are
narrated to us, will not be without their influence.' But
why was the law powerless ? or why should no remedy have
been attempted ? and why had the report of the Devon
Commission produced no result ?"

These last questions are very pertinent. Can it be
conceived that these terrible massacres of innocents,
carried out in the name of justice and the rights of
property, would have been tolerated in England ? Would
not the divinity that still lives in human hearts, in spite of
the hardening influences of a selfish humanity have asserted
itself, had these facts been brought home to the minds
and hearts of the population ? Would an Irish Parliament
in Dublin have tolerated these things, and given armed
soldiers, paid out of the public rates, to support this sys-
tem, by which the children of the poor were deliberately
and cruelly sentenced to death ?

O'Connell's Last Arguments.

Mr. Daniel O'Connell, in the last speech he delivered
in the House of Commons, with the shadow of death
already darkening his brow, spoke of the evils of starvation
and landlordism, and urged the Parliament to do some-
thing more to remove the accumulation of miseries under
which the people were groaning and dying. And he gave
increased force to the point advanced in a letter written
a few days previously. In this letter, the last written by
him to the Repeal Association, he said : — " It will not be
until the death of hundreds of thousands that the regret

will arise that more was not done to save a sinking nation,
How different would the scene be if we had our own
Parliament, taking care of our own people, of our own
resources. But, alas ! alas ! it is scarcely permitted to
think of these, the only sure preventatives of misery, and
the only sure instruments of Irish prosperity."

Evictions Continued.

Wholesale evictions followed on the heels of the
famine. Houses were levelled, and when the evicted
people built temporary dwellings, they were burnt down
as soon as the inmates left to dig a few potatoes for the
daily food. The famine clearances of 1848, are a dark
condemning record against the landlords. The people
were exhausted — their means and strength had been
dissipated in the long struggle with want. They could
not pay the demands of the owners of the property. The
resident landlords having mortgaged their lands were
pressed for payment. The Encumbered. Estates Act was
passed, and provided for the sale of mortgaged land.
Mortgages were foreclosed. The land changed hands,
and new landlords came into possession with the idea that
nothing could be done for the wretched people now living
on the soil. Emigration was declared to be the infallible
panacea for the miseries of the country, and the only one
left to the Irish people. It was asserted that the land
must be held by thrifty people from England or Scotland
— men with money and modern ideas. The regeneration
of the country was attempted by the removal of the ancient
toilers and the establishment of a new peasantry. It was
the old idea which had repeatedly failed in the past, yet
still capitalists and political economists clung to it, and
in spite of the misery it inflicted, and the loss of life

144

consequent thereof, they tried it again. Evictions took
place in the most barbarous and unchristian spirit. Methods
were adopted which were a disgrace to civilization, and
which had they happened in Turkey or Austria would have
been indignantly denounced. Rain or sleet, thunder or
snow, the houses must be levelled and the lands cleared.
The aged grandsire, the sick infant, the dying mother,
were turned into the road. The houses were unroofed
and levelled to the ground. One gentleman solicited
immortal renown by inventing a machine for pulling the
roof oif by one effort. The Legislature rose to the occa-
sion in 1848, and passed an Act to mitigate the miseries
and inconveniences of evictions. The milk of human
kindness revealed its presence, and to remedy the sorrows
of the Irish people, those whose hearts were tender pro-
hibited evictions — on Christmas-Day and Good-Friday
— and declared that houses must not be unroofed until the
inhabitants had been brought out.

The Extent of a Government's Sympathy.

The force of kindness and justice reached this amazing
height, and threw round the unsympathizing landlords these
strong restraints (?). Is it not pitiful to read of this meagre
attempt to curtail the action of the landlord class ? Welj
might Mr. T. M. Healy ask in his book **A word for
treland," the question — '' What manner of landlords were
these who required such restraints to be solemnly imposed
by statute ? " The Kilrush evictions were reported to the
House of Commons by Captain Kennedy in his official
returns, and Sir Robert Peel said of them " I must say
that I do not think that the records of any country, civil
or barbarous, present materials for such a picture . .
Three such tragical instances I do not believe were evei"

presented, either in point of fact or as conjured up even
in the imagination of any human being . . . and they
were heard with the expression of the deepest abborence
by the House of Commons." And to meet barbarities
like these, and to regulate men inflamed by selfishness, to
acts of demons, the most Christian Legislature under
heaven prohibited these things on Christmas-Day and
Good-Friday, and "thoughtfully enacted that the roof
must not be pulled off a tenant's home — until the inmates
had left." Alas for the "rarity" and meagreness of
"Christian charity" and civilized judgement.

The London Times shouted " In a few years more, a
Celtic Irishman will be as rare in Connemara as the Red
Indian on the shores of Manhattan." The shouts of the
Times have been heard in later periods of English history,
and have been resonantly loud whenever tyranny has been
dominant, and the reign of peace postponed until the
regime of blood, and the " gunpowder and glory business,"
have had unfettered sway.

Lord Sidney Godolphin Osborne, who wrote in the Times,
signing his letters with the initials S. G. O., was evidently
antagonistic to the policy of that "thunderer," the utter-
ances of which have since sunk in England to the hoarse
sounds of the mimic elements manufactured on the
theatrical stage by an enterprising manager, for the special
delectation of an audience that demands " plenty for its
money." Lord S. G. Osborne gives information of the
way in which these evictions were completed. The
starving and dying were carried out into the roads.
Coroners inquests were frequently held over the bodies of
those who had died upon the roads where they had been
cast by the agents of the landlords. The verdicts
repeatedly passed were "Death by starvation" and "Death

146

by exposure." The starving were evicted, and died ; and
yet the agents and sheriffs and landlords held their heads
erect, as if they were irreproachable characters. The
poachers who snared and destroyed game were treated as
felons, but the ''gentlemen" and officials who hurled from
their homes and left to die on the road the poor peasantry
of Ireland, were received into the bosom of society, and
were recognised as guiltless and honourable men.

Lord John Russell stated that in 1 849 — ^just after the
famine had left the people helpless — more than 50,000
families, consisting of probably 300,000 persons, were cast
out into the roads as though they were dogs ; no pity was
exercised towards them, no mercy was extended to them,
and no refuge was afforded them. He said : — " We have
made Ireland — I speak it deliberately — we have made it
the most depraved and the most miserable country in the
world ; but we are callous to our own ignominy and to the
results of our misgovernment."

But these evictions were not simply confined to the
time immediately succeeding the famine. They mark the
whole course of Irish history, and they have embittered
the minds of the Irish youth. Boys cast out with their
parents on the road-side in inclement weather, have grown
up with inveterate hostility to England, and many like
Michael Davitt have devoted their great powers to an
attempt to obtain redress for their fellow-countrymen.
The Irish National League Pamphlets condense much
information on the subject. No. 7 of these pamphlets
gives the following : —

** Ireland," said John Bright, in Dublin, on 30th

October, 1866, "has been a land of evictions — a word

which, I suspect, is scarcely known in any other

civilized country."

147

"In newly settled countries," said Mr. Butt, ''land
is said to be cleared when the forest is cut down, the
jungle or brushwood removed, and the wild beasts are
driven away. In Ireland the estates are 'cleared'
when the human beings that encumber them are
swept from the soil."

Many persons — especially in England and Scotland
— do not yet know what dreadful and abominable
things Irish evictions are and have been. Here are
three illustrative scenes described by well-known
Irishmen.

Mr. Butt in his " Land Tenure," speaking of the
Glenveigh evictions, in Donegal, says: — "A few years
ago a gentleman purchased in the Landed Estates
Court the property of one of the wildest and most
beautiful of the highland districts of Ireland. In a
valley almost separated from the rest of the world,
round a primitive hamlet, there dwelt a peaceful
population, who could have probably traced back their
generations in the same spot to a period before the
Plantation of Ulster. Differences arose between the
new comer and the old inhabitants. A man was
murdered under circumstances which gave the new
proprietor a pretext to say that it originated in this
feud. Under the excuse of punishing the non-
detection of the murderer, he * cleared.' his estate of
every living soul. In vain the Protestant and Catholic
clergy joined in a solemn protest against a sentence
which they pronounced both as cruel and unjust. In
vain they bore their testimony to the peaceful character
of the little community whom that sentence doomed
to a miserable fate. The proprietor was inexorable in
his stern resolve. Nearly three hundred human beings

148

were driven out, without the prospect or the power of
doing anything on God's earth to get them bread.
Their mountain homes are levelled to the ground, and
one great sheep farm occupies the district which gave
shelter and bread to numbers of human beings."

The same gentleman writes in the same work, of
the Tullamore evictions, in the King's County: — "A
townland in one of the midland counties was inhabited
by a prosperous and contented community. An estate
of about five hundred acres was divided into about
thirteen farms; thirteen thriving families occupied the
ground. They paid a rent the full value of their
farms. They paid that rent punctually. The families
of some had occupied for centuries the same farms.
The industry of themselves and their forefathers had
given fertility to the soil. Crime was unknown among
them. Disputes with their landlords they had none.
It suited the convenience of their landlord to sell his
interest in this estate. The purchaser was buying it
to traffic in it, and he believed it would be more
marketable if it were freed from the incumbrance of
human beings. To effectuate this object the seller
covenanted to clear the estate. The tenants, who had
paid up every penny of their rent, were all served with
notice to quit ; they were evicted. Thirteen human
habitations were levelled ; the inmates turned out
upon the world, reduced at once from comfort to
absolute beggary. It so happened that in this
instance the landlord adopted a course which enabled
a jury to strain the law, and award these poor tenants
ample compensation. But for the awkwardness with
which the proceeding was carried out, it might all
have been done without the power of any human

149

tribunal to take cognizance of the wrong. An
accidental blunder in the process put it in the power
of a jury of landlords, by the damages they awarded,
to mark their sense of the moral character of the act."
Dr. Nulty, the Catholic Bishop of Meath, a man
of probity and culture, says, when speaking of a sight he
saw, — " Seven hundred human beings were driven from
their homes in one day. The houses were destroyed. In
one house typhus fever held its inmates. Some had died,
others were at the height of the fever. They supplicated
the agent who superintended the evictions to spare their
house a little longer; but no! they must go, was the reply.
He ordered a large winnowing sheet to be secured over
the beds on which the fever victims lay — fortunately they
happened to be delirious at the time — and then he directed
the houses to be unroofed cautiously and slowly." The
Bishop says, '*I administered the last Sacrament of the
Church to four of these fever-victims next day, and save
the above-mentioned sheet there was not a roof nearer to
them than the canopy of heaven. The heavy rains that
usually attended the autumnal equinoxes descended in cold
copious torrents throughout the night, and at once revealed
to the houseless sufferers the awful realities of their condi-
tion. The landed proprietors in a circle all round, and
for many miles in every direction, warned their tenantry
against admitting them to a single night's shelter. Many
of these poor people were unable to emigrate. After
battling in vain with privations and pestilence, they at last
graduated from the workhouse to the tomb ; and in little
more than three years nearly a fourth of them lay quietly
in their graves defying eviction. And yet, would you
believe it, that agent and those landlords escaped hanging.
They had used the law."*

* Quoted in SuUivan's "New Ireland,"

150

Well might Daniel O'Connell write in John Bright's
album, when asked for his autograph : —

Within that land dwelt many a malcontent
Who cursed the tyranny to which he bent.
That land full many a wringing despot saw,
Who worked his tyranny in form of law.

One of the most terrible evictions recorded was that
of Glenveigh, mentioned above. History records the dark
deed, and paints it in its true colour, to the everlasting
disgrace of a tyrant landlord. The district was prosper-
ous ; the landlord who sold the soil spoke in the highest
terms of the people, but the new landlord wanted the
farms and the people had to go. Houses were torn down.
Widows and orphans were cast out on the road-side. One
old man, nearly ninety years of age, on leaving his house
for the last time reverently kissed the doorposts, with all
the impassioned tenderness of an emigrant leaving his
native land. Miserably clad, mid drizzling rain, they
crouched for shelter under the hedges and trees. Public
subscriptions furnished funds for the emigration of the
people, and before they left they marched in a body to the
burial ground where their forefathers slept, and throwing
themselves on the turf they reverently kissed again and
again the green covered places of the dead. No doubt
they envied the dead their continuance in the soil. They
were sent across the water and flung almost penniless into
the new world, to cherish an undying hatred of the nation
to which that landlord belonged, and to the Legislature,
the laws of which enabled him to do this great wrong.

Families Evicted. Re-admitted as Caretakers.

1849-51 .. 263,000 .. 73,000
1852-60 .. 110,000 .. " 28,000

1861-70 .. 47,000 .. 8,000

1871-80 .. 41,000 .. 6,000

1881-82 .. 21,000 .. 4,000

Total 33 years .. 482,000 .. 119,000

151

Thus the number of persons actually evicted (on an
average of 5 per family) was over 2,000,000 (say 70,000
per annum), about 35 per cent, of the population.

In the report of Captain Kennedy, a case is mentioned
of two children lying asleep on their father's corpse, \^ile
their dying mother lay near them, all homeless because of
eviction ; and of another where a man turned out of his
house built himself and his children a shelter of loose
stones, which was demolished by the agent while the man
was gathering shell-fish for the support of his family.

Dr. Spence Watson writes as follows in a special
Supplement of the Newcastle Leader-. —

But even after the proof of this paper has been corrected in
this first month of the year of grace (!) 1887, comes the following
account from the Killarney district of Ireland, where Lord Kenmare
and Mr. Herbert, of Muckross, seem to be trying who will evict the
most tenants : — "Patrick Leary's house was first visited. He has
nine children. The tenant could not afford to pay a farthing. The
children all tattered in rags were seated round the turf fire, impart-
ing warmth to their naked limbs, and when the police put in an
appearance their heartrending cries could not fail to send a thrill of
pity through the spectators. The bailiffs quickly set to work in
removing the furniture, &c., and in order to facilitate the removal
they were broken up and thrown on a manure heap opposite the
door. It was in vain that Leary and his wife expostulated with the
bailiff to be allowed to seek temporary shelter in an outhouse. They
were put out in a blinding storm of hail. The poor woman sought
shelter alongside the furniture, which was piled upon the road. She
had a child about two years of age in her arms, who cried bitterly.
Three other little bareheaded children standing in the snow, without
shoes or substantial clothing to keep out the intense cold, were
blinded by hailstones, threw themselves under the skirts of their
mother's gown for shelter, and were sobbing and weeping intensely.
A little child about nine months old was wrapped up in a blanket in
the arms of his sister. The police appeared to be visibly moved ^
Leary held the place under a lease at the yearly rental of £z2, the

152

valuation being /i6 5s. Only twice did he get a reduction of 2s. in
the pound. He asked to be allowed into the Land Court to have a
fair rent fixed, but was refused. To-day he asked French, the bailiff,
for time to pay a part of what was due, but the former said it was
Mr. Hussey he had to deal with, and no compromise was come to.
There*are only about three acres in the entire holding for tillage, the
rest being mountains and rocks. The present tenant came into the
place ten years ago. He and Looney are the only two tenants in
the place, and the nearest farmer's house is three miles, so that the
probability is that they had to take shelter by the ditch for the
night, as they got no notice of the eviction, and consequently could
not go to their friends to-day, who would provide them shelter. A
move was next made to the house of Timothy Looney. He was
not able to afford to pay any rent, and he asked for time, but
the bailiff would not listen to this. He has seven young children,
his wife, and his aged father, eighty years of age, leaning on two
crutches. The place was in possession of the family from time
immemorial. The poor old man was not permitted to remain for
the night, and probably to-day's proceedings will end his days.
Before leaving, I saw Looney improvising a sort of shelter by the
side of an outhouse, composed of beds and furniture, where they
were going to put up for the night. The rent Looney was paying
was ^25, while the valuation is only /15 5s. Two years' rent
was due."

THE RULE OF THE ESTATE.

Such was and such is an eviction. Remember that up to 1870,
only sixteen years ago, the system continued in all its rigour. At
any time and upon any pretext a man might be turned out from his
home. The house he or his fore-elders had built might be pulled
down about his ears, and he might be driven away from the land to
which he had given all its value, the owner quietly pocketing the
benefit of the exertions of generations of tenants. The tenant
might have paid that rent which justly had never become due with
perfect regularity, still out he must go. The landlord held in his
hands that which meant life or death to his tenant, and he availed
himself in many instances of this power to the full. Upon the
Lansdowne Estates, for example, tenants were forbidden to marry
without the agent's permission. On the same estates a tenant

'53

sheltered his sister-in-law whilst her husband was seeking work.
The rule of the estate was that no stranger should be taken in. The
poor woman was approaching her confinement, and she was removed
to a shed on a relative's land, where the child was born. The
relative was fined a gale of rent and made to pull the shed down.
The poor sick woman took refuge in a cavern on the mountain, and
for allowing it the tenants who jointly grazed the land had two fines
levied upon them. Sir John Gray, quoting Chief Baron Pigott's
words in passing sentence upon persons accused of the manslaughter
of a boy of twelve years of age, spoke thus of evictions and of the
rules of this and other estates, the breaches of which being punished
by eviction became imperative and dangerous laws, laws which men
must obey or suffer the result, which, to an Irishman, is worse than
death. The boy's " mother at one time held a little dwelling, from
which she was expelled. His father was dead. His mother had left
him, and he was alone and unprotected. He found refuge with his
grandmother who held a little farm, from which she was removed
in consequence of harbouring this poor boy, as the agent of the
property had given public notice to the tenantry that expulsion from
their farms would be the penalty inflicted upon them if they
harboured any persons having no residence on the estate. These
two cases showed that the tenantry were, because of the extra-
ordinary powers conferred by law on landlords, in such a state of
serfdom that the mother could not receive her daughter, that the
grandmother could not receive her own grandchild, unless that child
was a tenant on the estate ; and the result, in the case he was
referring to, was this, — that the poor boy, without a house to shelter
him, was sought to be forced into the house of a relative in a terrible
night of storm and rain. He was immediately pushed out again, he
staggered on a little, fell to the ground, and next morning was found
cold, stiff, and dead. The persons who drove the poor boy out were
tried for the offence of being accessories to his death, and their
defence was that what they did was done under the terror of ' the
rule of the estate,' and that they meant no harm to the boy."

Now, Englishmen and Englishwomen, who have the love of
your own little ones deeply implanted in your hearts, who have
understood how close the ties of blood are amongst the Irish people,
who know what the land which they have made and which is their

154

one hope and only home means to them, can you not understand
how these accursed laws which allow men who have done nothing
for them, who have never seen the land from which they have sucked
all the improved annual value, who in the sight of God are unjust
and extortioners, to turn them and their little ones adrift on the
world, homeless and houseless, make the crimes and outrages of
which you hear so much, and such exaggerations, not only possible^
but certain ? I have not given you the worst cases. If you will
look into the books and papers, which are accessible to all, you will
read for yourselves scores of instances as bad, and at times even
worse than anything I have told. And remember that in the four
years from 1849 to 1852 there were 221,845 evictions, and that in
each there was misery to a family of our fellow-beings involved, and
that even yet, this very day, the same infernal work is going forward
wherever a man is unable to pay his rent, from whatever cause, and
that we English people are paying for it, and providing police and
soldiers that it may be done effectually."

Influence of Laws on Irish Feeling.

The oppressive land laws which made these things possi-
ble, in an age when slavery was denounced and when slaves
in the West Indies and the United States of America had
been freed, have done much to make the people of Ireland
hate a Parliament which seemed determined at all hazards to
keep intact the odious laws until forced to relax them by
the pressure, not of justice, but of public force and
threatenings. The manner in which the land was seized,,
the rents continually raised because of improvements made
by the tenants, and the people evicted because they were
unable to pay the additional imposts placed upon their
own industry, filled the minds of the Irish with intense
hatred of English-made laws. The sensitive emotional
nature of the people of Ireland was not sufficiently taken
into consideration by the governing powers. Unvarying:
law in accordance with the rigid ideas of unsympathetic

155

Political Economists took the place of a sympathetic treat-
ment of the population. Political Economy uncontrolled
by a broad humanity, and therefore destitute of its noblest
factor, has been the inspiration of English rulers. The
Parliament dominated by the spirit of landlordism, and
composed of a majority of aliens, has repressed the native
institutions, and fostered methods of restriction which have
been ruinous to the energies and aspirations of a people
who dearly love freedom.

Political Economy and Humanity.

The Parliaments of this century have too often been
like a huge juggernaut rolling its iron wheels along,
impelled by the privileged classes, and in its cruel pro-
gress the brightest and best of Ireland's sons have been
hurled to the ground and crushed. Loveless theories of
the rights of property and the claims of landlordism have
usurped the place of a loving attention to the first
necessities of a nation's progress, and inflexible and cast-
iron like laws with which the governed had no sympathy,
have spread misery in the lives of those whose inalienable
birthright was a right to live in the world equally with the
right claimed by the governors. The voices of the Irish
representatives have been disregarded and silenced. The
measures carefully drawn up by those who knew best what
were the necessities of the people have been contemptu-
ously thrown out by Lords and Commons. Instead of
trying to pacify and content the people, they have been
exasperated to limits beyond human endurance. Their
demands were said to be opposed to economical and social
laws, and their opponents forgot that these laws to be
respected must be inspired and controlled by moral and
elevating principles which shall appeal to the Christianity

156

which like invisible ink is written on the human constitu-
tion, and is brought out and made legible by the heat of
trial and suffering. Englishmen have been surprised at
the apparent apathy of respectable people who have refused
to co-operate with the law officers in their attempts to
grapple with those whom the law calls criminals. We
have not always looked at the cause of crime. We should
denounce positive and negative sympathy with iniquity
and declare that tyranny cannot be a remedy for tyranny^
Light is the only victor over darkness, love the only antidote
to selfishness, and a broad and all compassing charity and
justice can alone beat injustices to the ground. Good
laws, based on the inherent right of all men to live and to
be preserved from harm, can alone overcome cruel and
iniquitious practices. We should not palliate a wrong
done by a tenant or a landlord, a cottier or a bailiif, and in
apportioning blame we should look on all sides of the
subject. It is as much an assassination to cast out children
into the snowy road to die, as to shoot from behind a stone
wall at an agent. Both are murderers who do this, and
the laws should be so framed as to bring both equally to
justice. The English Parliament in refusing to act on the
Report of the Devon Commission and other Commissions
appointed by itself, has made itself an accessory before
and after the fact in the murders which have stained Irish
soil. The unfortunate system has produced crime, and the
Government has only punished the crime of the murderous
and incensed tenant, while it has honoured and supported
the equally murderous landlord. Was it likely that men
would sit still and see their children destroyed ? Was it to
be expected that men should be content to be punished
for their labour, and the most successful of them to be
loaded with heavier burdens ? Agents, landlords, and

^57

legislators are guilty in the sight of God and of man.
Their actions have been clear violations of the Golden
Rule, and of the spirit of Him who declared that He
came '*not to destroy men's lives but to save them." And
if we condemn those who have committed crimes against
landlords and agents, let us be equally just in condemning
the greater criminals, who with fuller knowledge and vaster
power have been the first aggressors.

Want of Progress Under the ** Union."

If Ireland under the Act of Union had shared a
prosperity similar to that realized in England some
mitigating features might have been seen in the injustice
of her government. But Ireland under the Imperial
Parliament has failed to make adequate progress, and has
not shared the measure of prosperity she reached during
the time of her own Parliament. The supreme test of the
worth of any Government is whether it contributes to the
prosperity of the people and secures for them an increase
of stability and peace, as well as a multiplication of
comforts. Governments must be valued and honoured
according to their practical results, and the working out
of the great fundamental principles of freedom. The
Union of 1800 must be tried in the same way as the laws
formulated for the government of other lands. All laws
are to a great extent experiments, and if they fail, states-
men must use their powers to discover better methods for
the regulation and development of national life. We have
seen that in the year 1800 there was a great advance
in Irish manufactures and commerce, and that the wealth
of Ireland was so much increased that the people were
able to indulge in further luxuries. What has been the
condition of Ireland since ? Her trade has declined, her

158

population has been driven from her shores by an enforced
emigration, until it numbers fewer than it did three-quarters
of a century ago. She has sunk lower and lower until she
has reached a level more depressed than that of any nation
in Europe. The nobility and the wealthier classes left
Dublin to reside in London, near the centre of govern-'
ment. The seats and mansions of the aristocracy have
fallen into ruins, and are the abode of owls and bats. The
Dublin residences of the gentry are now let out in tene-
ments, and are in a dilapidated condition. The Irish people
have been compelled to pay to an absentee class the
moneys needed to enable the landlords to mingle in the
gaieties of Court life. " Prior to the Union, ninety-eight
Peers, and a proportionate number of wealthy Commoners,
inhabited the city (of Dublin). The number of resident
Peers at present does not exceed twelve. The effect of
the Union has been to withdrawn from Dublin many of
those who were likely to contribute most effectually to its
operation and importance. A house which in 1797 paid
;£"6 4s. is now subject to £'^,0, whilst the value of property
has been reduced 20 per cent. The number of inhabited
houses has diminished from 15,104 to 14,949. The num-
ber of insolvent houses augmented from the year 1815 to
1822 from 880 to 4,719. In 1799 there were only 7 bank-
rupts in Dublin, in 18 10 there were 152."* Thus reads
the Report of the Select Committee on Dublin Local
Taxation in 1825, and Mr. T. M. Healy declares that a
report on the city in 1886 would tell a still more
woeful tale.

IMr. T. M. Healy says: — f'D'Alton, in his History
of the County Dublin, p. 85, f;ives a comparative table,

* Quoted by T. M. Healy. " A Word for Ireland."

t >, „ ,. ,, pp. 47-48.

159
compiled from the most approved authorities, of the

)t the annual ab

sentee rental : —

1691

;^i36,oi8

1729

^627,799

1782

;^2,223,222

1783

;^i,6o8,932

1804

;^3, 000,000

1830

;^4,ooo,ooo

183S

;^5, 000,000

" In 1830, Mr. Butler Bryan estimated, before a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, the absentee drain at
;^3,ooo,ooo. Mr. Ensor, ' after a minute calculation,' at
;^4,ooo,ooo. The total rental of Ireland is estimated
at about ;(f^i5,ooo,ooo ; and .on 23rd April, 1872, a return
of Irish Landed Proprietors was presented to the House of
Commons {^Thorn's Directory for 1884, p. 743), from which
it appears : — 5,589 persons, owning 8,880,549 acres,
valued for rating at £ 4,718,497, then resided * on or near
their property'; 4,842 proprietors, owning 5,215,264 acres,
valued for rating at /^'2, 499, 343, lived * usually elsewhere
in Ireland, and occasionally on the property' ; 821,200
acres, valued at ;^49 1,778, were held by public institutions
and persons (unclassed as to absenteeism) owning under
100 acres. The remaining 2,973 proprietors, owning
5,129,169 acres, valued for rating at ^^2,470,81 5, are set
down as ' absentees.' The return does not include
absentee house -owners, such as Lord Pembroke, who
draws over half a million from Dublin alone. The Irish
Doomsday Book shows that of the 20,000,000 acres in
Ireland, 1,942 own two-thirds, 744 own one-half, 292 per-
sons own one-third, 14 persons own 50,000 acres each, 12
persons own 1,297,888 acres, 3 persons own 3,000,000
acres, and one person owns 170,119 acres."

i6o

Sir Gay AN Duffy says: — "The Union was a profitable
compact for one of the parties. England found a market
for her fabrics, a recruiting field for her army, a partner in
her public burthens, and by making absenteeism a necessity
among the wealthy classes who were members of the
Houses of Parliament, and the train who followed them,
she drew from Ireland an annual tribute of five or six
millions of rent. She enjoyed a monopoly of the public
patronage, the chief offices paid by Irish taxes were filled
by English functionaries. But for the other partner it was
a disastrous compact." When legislative independence
was secured by Grattan the woollen trade revived, and
though the population was only 4,000,000, yet 150,000
were employed in silk and woollen manufactures. In
1 84 1, though the population had then increased to more
than 8,000,000, yet the artisans employed in these trades
had become fewer than 8,000. The mills in the provincial
towns had all closed ; in Dublin, where 90 master manu-
facturers had given employment to 5,000 artisans, the
number of manufacturers had diminished to 12, and the
workmen were under 700. 'The fate of the remainder
might, as far as they survived, be learned from the annual
reports of the Mendicity Society, some were breaking
stones for gd. a day, some were starving for want of that
miserable resource. A benevolent Doctor in a report he
made, said — " I found in Luke's parish, 65 houses con-
taining 1,763 inhabitants, nearly 28 persons in each on an
average, among the entire of whom scarcely fifty blankets
could be found."

Duffy again says — speaking of fifty years after the
Union — " The social condition of the country during the
half-century then drawing to a close was without a parallel
in Europe. The whole population were dependent on

i6i

agriculture. There were minerals, but none were found
in what miners called * paying quantities.' There was no
manufacture except linen and the remnant of a woollen
trade, slowly dying out before the pitiless competition of
Yorkshire. What the island chiefly produced was food,
which was exported to richer countries to enable the
cultivator to pay an inordinate rent. Foreign traders saw
with amazement an island possessing all the natural condi-
tions of a great commerce, as bare of commerce as if it
lay in some bye-way of the world which enterprise had not
yet reached. Harbours looking towards the prosperous
western world were completely vacant, harbours looking
toward the east were occupied only by ships which carried
raw produce and human food to England. There was no
foreign trade. . . . The noble quays of Liffey, which
would rival the Lung d'Arno if Dublin were the seat of
a national Government, held only a few coal barges and
fruit boats. Similar decay was nearly universal. The
provincial towns in general had an unprosperous or bank-
rupt look. There was scarcely a county which could not
show some public work begun before the Union and now
a ruin. When an Irish gentleman visited other countries,
the contrast turned his blood to gall. Lord Cloncurry
declared that there was more misery in Dublin than in all
Europe."

The ** Union " and Manufacturing.

" Let us see what was the effect of Pitt's measure on
manufactures. In 1800 there were in —

Dublin . . 90 woollen manufacturers, employing
4,918 hands
„ . . 30 woolcombers, employing 230 hands
„ .. 13 carpet-combers, „ 230 „
,, . . 2500 silk-loom weavers,.-^ — : r^.^

Y^ Cn THE '^ \i

(( rNlVERSITY ))

l62

Cork . . 1000 braid weavers

2000 worsted weavers
3000 hosiers
700 woolcombers
, . 2000 cotton weavers

600 linen-check weavers
Wicklow . . 1000 hand-loom weavers
Kilkenny . . 56 blanket manufacturers

Balbriggan 2500 calico looms at work

To-day not a vestige of these industries remain, with the
exception perhaps of a single tweed factory in Dublin,
while of new works to take their place there are practically
none. These are but sample instances of decline, for all
over the country may be seen roofless factories, idle mill-
wheels, and empty storehouses. * I shall do all that in me
lies to discourage Irish woollen manufactures,' said William
III. to his Parliament (1698) ; but the discouragements of
restrictive laws in the seventeenth century operated less
fatally to Irish trade than the indirect blight brought on
every Irish industry by the Legislative Union. In the
eighty-six years it has been in force there have been eleven
Acts for the direct relief, otherwise than by the ordinary
poor law, of exceptional distress ; ten for the indirect
relief of poverty by public works ; four for giving the poor
employment at the public expense ; four for contending
with famine fever ; four for saving from starvation the
thousands of children deserted through the poverty of their
parents ; three for the relief of railway companies unable
to proceed with their works ; four for the artificial assist-
ance of banks, aud for sustaining commercial credit ; and
four affecting encumbered estates ; making in all forty-
three Acts in fulfilment of Pitt's prophecies of boundless
prosperity as the result of his measure."*

* T. M. Healy.— " The Irish Problem and how to solve it, 1883."

i63

An eminent French statesman visiting Ireland in 1824,
said he had seen the Indian in his wigwam, and the negro
in his chains, but that the condition of the Irish tenant-at-
will was worse than that of the savage or the slave.

In 1834 the Parliament refused to consider the Repeal
Question, but it passed a resolution to apply the best
attention to the removal of all just causes of complaint,
and to the promotion of all well-considered means of
improvement for the benefit of Ireland. Promises are
good when they are kept, but are useless when they are
violated. The Corporations of England and Scotland
were reformed, but Ireland was not only destitute of her
Parliament, but her Municipal Corporations were also left
unreformed and were exclusively in the hands of Protes-
tants, although a Royal Commission had reported that in
every case they had plundered the public estate granted
for their endowment. The Poor Law computed that the
number of agricultural labourers in the country was over
a million, and that one-half of them were out of employ-
ment for thirty weeks in the year. Thomas Carlyle in his
"Chartism*' says that this is a fact perhaps the most elo-
quent that ever was written down in any language, at any
date of the world's history.

Evidence of Commissions.

Parliamentary Commissions enquired from time to
time into the destitution and degradation of the Irish
nation, and the statements of the witnesses called are
enough to tear the heart-string of every human being.

Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Kildare, stated that " It is
scarcely imaginable on what a pittance the people subsist ;
he lies down on a little straw on the floor, and remaining
ihere motionless all the day, gets up in the evening, eats

164

a few potatoes, and then throws himself again upon the
earth, where he remains until morning; thus he drags out
an existence which it were better was terminated in any
way than continue in the manner it is." He was asked
the question " Do you think this evil likely to increase ? "
and he replied "If the laws be not altered, and the country
settled so that people will have a confidence in the peace,
and good order to be established, and if the English
capitalists do not go to Ireland, I do not know why it
must not increase." "The state of the laws keeps every-
thing unsettled and insecure, and discourages men of
capital and industry from embarking both in the improve-
ment of Ireland."

Another witness, Mr. Blake said — " I do not conceive
that there is any political curse upon Ireland that is to
prevent her from being as happy and as peaceable as other
countries, if instead of attempting to fit the people to the
constitution, the constitution be fitted to the people."

Mr. Leslie Foster was asked ** To what cause do you
attribute the frequent occurrence of disturbance in Ire-
land ?" and he replied "I think the proximate cause is the
extreme physical misery of the peasantry, coupled with
their liability to be called on for the payment of different
charges which it is often perfectly impossible for them to-
meet. The immediate cause I conceive to be the attempt
to enforce these demands by the various processes of the
law ; but that there must also be taken into consideration
the fact that they are living under institutions for which
they have neither much aff"ection or respect."

Reading all these facts, can we be surprised that Lord
Chesterfield's statements should be adopted by others, and
that many approved of the sentiment, viz.: — ''If the
military force that has suppressed the rebellion had killed

i65 •

half as many landlords as Whiteboys, it would have con-
tributed more effectually to restore quiet, for the people of
Ireland are worse used than slaves by the masters and the
deputies of the deputies."

Mr. MuLLHALL gives some very forcible statistics*: —
In fifty years the population of the United Kingdom has
risen from twenty-six millions to thirty-seven millions, an
increase of 42 per cent. But the ratio of increase was
reduced from 28 per cent, in 1841 to 8 per cent, in 1861,
mainly because of the Irish Famine, which carried off over
1,200,000 persons.

Statistics of Emigration.
Emigration has removed from the United Kingdom
in fifty years more than nine millions of people, of whom
10 per cent, have returned. '* Most of those who went to
the United States were Irish ; the bulk of whom went
westward to open up the new Territories. In thirty years
down to 1880, the aggregate wealth of eleven Western
States multiplied twelve and a half times, showing an
increase of 2654 millions sterling; at least one-fourth of
this amount, or a sum equal to our National Debt, was the
result of Irish settlers." Since 1837 ^^^ emigrants have
comprised : —

Irish persons .. .. 4,186,000

English and Welsh . . 4,045,000

Scotch . . . . . . 870,000

Total .. .. .. 9,101,000

Population.

The population of Dublin from 1841 to 1886 has
increased 45 per cent., but Manchester has increased 97

* '• Fifty Years of National Progress," by Michael G. Mullhall.

i66

per cent., Liverpool 105 per cent., Glasgow 10 1 per cent.,
Birmingham 138 per cent., Leeds 122 percent., Sheffield
180 per cent., London 108 per cent.

Property
The value of house property in relation to population
is as follows : — Dublin ^44 per inhabitant, Birmingham
;^76, Glasgow ;;^ioo, Manchester £\<:>^, Liverpool ^,114,
London £\^^- The general average is England £'^^y
Scotland £^2, Ireland £iz.

The Death Rate.
With the increase of poverty in Ireland there has been

an increase in the death rate.

In 1886 the death i

eight principal cities were ; —

London . . 207

Glasgow . . 24-8

Liverpool . . 237

Edinburgh . . ig'i

Manchester. . 25-9

Leeds . . . . 20*8

Birmingham 20*0

Dublin. . . . 27-0

Committals for Crime.
With regard to crime, the annual average of com-
mittals for the ten years ending 1885 was per 100,000 of
the population — England and Wales 60, Scotland 71,
Ireland 77.

Education.
With regard to education, the percentage of persons
able to write their names in the marriage register has been
at three different periods as follows : —

1836 1850 1881

England . . 57 . . 64 . . 84

Scotland . . 78 . . 83 . . 88

Ireland .. 48 .. 55 .. 67

167

Mr. MuLLHALL, in speaking of the condition of the
masses, says: — " Suicide and divorce are likewise increas-
ing, except in Ireland, where both are almost unknown."

The chapter on Ireland in MullhaWs Fifty Years of
National Progress, pp. 114- 116, deserves careful study: —

'' The present reign has been the most disastrous
since that of Elizabeth, as the following statistics
show : —

Died of famine .. .. 1,225,000

Persons evicted . . . . 3,668,000

Number of emigrants .. 4,186,000

Evictions were most numerous immediately after the
Famine, the landlords availing themselves of the
period of greatest calamity to enforce their *' rights."
Official returns give the number of families, and these
averaging seven persons we ascertain the actual num-
ber of persons evicted : —

Years.

Families.

Persons.

1849-51

263,000

. . 1,841,000

1852-60

110,000

770,000

1861-70

47,000

329,000

1871-86 .

104,000

728,000

Total . . 524,000 . . 3,668,000

The number of persons evicted is equal to 75 per
cent, of the actual population. No country, either in
Europe or elsewhere, has suffered such wholesale
extermination.

i68

"Emigration since 1837 ^^^ amounted to a
number equal to 84 per cent, of the present
population : —

1837-50 1,085,000

1851-60 .. .. .. 1,231,000

1861-70 .. .. .. 867,000

1871-86 .. .. ., 1,003,000

Total . . . . 4,186,000

"Existing Irish settlements abroad and the estim-
ated wealth in their possession show that the bulk of
the emigrants were good citizens, of thrifty and
industrious habits, viz. : —

Number.

Wealth, millions

United States

. .

2,040,000

.. 388

Canada . .

1,053,000

I II

Australia . .

. ,

666,000

.. 132

Buenos Ayres

27,000

Cape Colony,

&c.

25,000

Total.. .. 3,811,000 .. 655

*' In one generation four million emigrants, who
left home penniless, have become possessed of real
and personal property to the amount of 655 millions
sterling, besides having sent home to their friends
since 1851 a sum of thirty-two miHions. This shows
an average accumulation of fourteen millions yearly,
or £'] per head on the medium number of exiles
since 1837."

Failure of Feeble Remedies.

Attempts have been made in late years to remedy
these evils. All the leading statesmen of the century have

169

tried their utmost powers to induce Ireland to accept the
badge of servitude, and bow to a system of government
which they declared to be the only possible one. Failure
has been inscribed upon all their plans. That which has
been fatal to the success of all the purposes and schemes
of the English Cabinets, has been the assertion of the
principle that Ireland must never be allowed to have a
separate legislature, but must always be ruled in the inter-
ests of England. The spirit of landlordism of Protestant
ascendancy and of the predominance of England is the
inspiring and directing force of the legislation of Pitt
and Percival, of Palmerston and Peel, and even Russel,
Canning, Melbourne, and Aberdeen, while sincerely in
sympathy with progressive measures in England, could not
divest their minds of the idea that Ireland must be kept
as a subject-island. The central injustices of the country
were never dealt with. The blotches on the cheek were
vigorously treated by drenching admixtures of the brim-
stone and treacle of alternate coercion and the relaxation
of coercion, but the cancer of injustices, which was eating
away the life of the nation, was left untouched. The small
measures of relief, reluctantly passed, were accompanied
by the flourish of trumpets and the acclamations of the
governing classes. All the Cabinets tried only to cure
Ireland by opium-like doses of legislation, which lulled to
sleep and dulled the pain, but when the patient awoke, the
anguish was as intolerable as ever, and another course was
demanded by the condition of the suffering one.

National Phlebotomy.

Then a course of coercion, which acted like the old
process of phlebotomy was adopted, and the life-blood of
Ireland was let out with no stint or remorse. I have heard

of a coachman wko regularly brought down his lash on
one of the horses at a certain part of the road. When
asked the reason of this chastisement each journey, he
said ''that the horse once shied at the whitened gatepost
close by, and now," he continued, "I alius gives 'im some-
thing to remember, so as he can't notice that post." That
has been the policy in Ireland — a sharper pain in the
shape of coercion and martial law has been inflicted, to
draw Ireland's attention from her real diseases, when the
opium-like doses have failed. In consequence, the country
has been reduced to a condition of increased weakness.
But all in vain. Drenches of coercion and small sweet-
meats to take away the nauseous taste have all failed.
Ireland was not satisfied with homeopathic donations of
aconite and sulphur, when she needed food. She
demanded to be treated as one who had long suffered from
disease and neglect, and who required not only that the
diseases affecting her life at its citadel should be removed,
but that her weakened system should also be strengthened by
generous and just supplies of food. Removal of iniquitious
class government, and the supply of honest and just laws,
strengthening freedom and developing industry was needed.
But instead of this, coercion laws of the severest character
were passed and administered with cruel hand.

The Black List.

Mr. Boyd Kinnear, M.P., in June, 1884, in a small
leaflet, says:* — "From 1800 to 1870 there were some
forty coercion bills passed for Ireland. Between 1819 and
1830 five Royal Commissions and Select Committees took
evidence (and the evidence would break your hearts) ; and
between 1829 and 1869 there were twenty-seven Bills and

* Quoted by T. M. Healy, " A Word for Ireland," pages 95-96.

171

Resolutions offered by Irish members on the Land Question,
and every one was rejected. Yet all these Bills were of
the most moderate character. No matter what they pro-
posed, the Irish members could not obtain a hearing in
the English Parliament. Yet the Land Question involved
the life and death of 6,000,000 of Irish human beings.
Of these 6,000,000, about one-half have perished or been
driven into exile by evictions since 1845. Think of it!
And all this by laws which you, the people of England and
Scotland, have enforced upon Ireland." In a pamphlet on
Ireland {■^. 5), published in 188 1 — the same Mr. Kinnear,
after alluding to the way in which Ireland has always been
ruled by foreigners, according to their foreign ideas, ex-
claims : — ** Would Scotland be contented with such a
system t Assuredly not. Before ten years were out, there
would be a smouldering rebellion from one end of the
country to the other, and an English official's life would not
be safe beyond the radius of a policeman's baton."

1800 f
to
18051

1807

1808-9

1814
to ■

I8I6
1817-
1822

to
1830

Habeas Corpus Suspen-
sion.
Seven Coercion Acts.

ist February, Coercion Act.

Habeas Corpus Suspen-
sion.

2nd August, Insurrection
Act.

Habeas Corpus Suspen-
sion.

Habeas Corpus Suspen-
sion.
Insurrection Act.

Habeas Corpus Suspen-
sion.
One Coercion Act.

Habeas Corpus Suspen-
sion.

Two Coercion Acts in
1822, and one 1823.

1830 Importation of Arms Act.

1 83 1 Whiteboy Act.

1831 Stanley's Arms Act.

1832 Arms and Gunpowder Act.

1833 Suppression of Disturb-

ance.

1833 Change of Venue Act.

1834 Disturbances Amendment:

and Continuance.

1834 Arms and Gunpowder Act.

1835 Public Peace Act.

1836 Another Arms Act.

1838 Another Arms Act.

1839 Unlawful Oaths Act.

1840 Another Arms Act.

1841 Outrages Act.

7.2

1 84 1 Another Arms Act.
1843 Another Arms Act.

1843 Act Consolidating all Pre-

vious Coercion Acts.

1844 Unlawful Oaths Act

1845 Additional Constables near

Public Works Act.

1845 Unlawful Oaths Act.

1846 Constabulary Enlargement

1847 Crime and Outrage Act.

1848 Treason Amendment Act.
1848 Removal of Arms Act.
1848 Suspension of Habeas

Corpus.

1848 Another Oaths Act.

1849 Suspension of Habeas

Corpus.

1850 Crime and Outrage Act.

1851 Unlawful Oaths Act.

1853 Crime and Outrage Act.

1854 Crime and Outrage Act.

1855 Crime and Outrage Act.

1856 Peace Preservation Act.
1858 Peace Preservation Act.

i860
1862
1862
1865
1 866

1866

1867

1868

Peace Preservation Act.

Unlawful Oaths Act.

Peace Preservation Act.

Suspension of Habeas
Corpus Act (August).

Suspension of Habeas
Corpus.

Suspension
Corpus.

of Habeas

Suspension
Corpus.

1870 Peace Preservation Act.

1 87 1 Protection of Life and

Property.

1 87 1 Peace Preservation Con.

1873 Peace Preservation Act.

1875 Peace Preservation Act.

1875 Unlawful Oaths Act.

1 88 1 to 1882 Peace Preservation
Act (suspending Habeas
Corpus) .

1 88 1 to 1886 Arms Act.

1882 to 1885 Crimes Act.
1886 to 1887 Arms Act.

Many of the remedies proposed were heroic but futile.
There was a clever cartoon a few years ago in Fun — **Poor
Ireland" — the "sick sister" of the British family is sitting
in a doleful plight, surrounded by above a dozen political
doctors, every one pressing his peculiar specific. Dr.
Russel offers his *' Whig mixture," Dr. Bright a " land
cordial," Dr. J. S. Mill insists on severe ''heroic remedies,"
whilst Dr. Gladstone recommends " generous treatment."
A Communist shows a dangerous knife; a Roman Catholic
Priest has a prescription for " complete isolation." Dr.
Disraeli is feeling the patient's pulse with puzzled shake of
the head, while Dr. Robert Lowe in the back-ground

holds up his hands in hopeless despair of any good
being done.*

"The Hour and the Man."

Ignorance of the true needs of Ireland has been one
of the causes of her misgovernment, and selfishness in
national policy has spread bitterness over the Irish life.
All the measures of tyrannical force have failed, and Ireland
has remained as poor and destitute and dissatisfied as ever.
Nay ! her poverty, destitution, and dissatisfaction have in-
creased, as her sons have become more educated, and by
constitutional privileges have been better able to appre-
hend and realize their position. Many of the great states-
men who were unable to see the primary needs of the
people, or were not sufficiently strong to free England
from a traditional policy which had been outstripped by
the progress of thought and freedom, passed from view,
and left the problem still unsettled. The Andromeda of
Erin was still chained to the rock, and assailed by unjust
government and landlordism and a compulsory alien
church.

A modern Perseus was needed. Those who essayed the
task were too weak for it, and were compelled to flee
before the attacks of privilege, many of them with wrecked
reputations. But during part of this time, nursing his
strength into increased vigour, and training his great mind
to cope successfully with the dangers, there lived one who
was destined more than any other of his age to be the
great statesman of the Irish Question.

Slowly but surely he progressed from Toryism to
become a follower of Peel. Slowly but surely influences
born in association with Canning took fuller form and

* "Ireland in 1872,"— Dr. Macaulay.

174

increased life in his nature and policy. ' Through the
Coalition Government of Lord Aberdeen, he marched to
a position still more advanced and renowned. The lesser
offices of the Government were but rungs in the ladder by
which he climbed to the first position in English Parlia-
mentary life, and in the nation's esteem. And then when
he had risen to a height which enabled him to take a
wider view of the great questions of the day, and when
his power and influence in the nation enabled him to work
out his beneficient purposes, he staked his honourable
reputation upon great and hitherto discarded methods to
settle the difficulties of Irish government. His mind
refused to be bound and crippled by the hoary traditions
of an age out of date, and in 1868 the Disestablishment
of the Irish Church — the forerunner of the Land Act of
1870 — showed the Irish people the sympathy and states-
manship, the justice and righteousness of England's
noblest and greatest political leader — the peerless and
fearless Mr. Gladstone.

March 'jth, 1888.

Dear Sir,

You are doing good service by educating the people
on the Irish Question, and if the next part of your work is as
instrudive as your last, I have no doubt it will have a large
circulation.

Our opponents are hoping by denunciation to stem the
onward progress of the Home Rule Movement. They complain
that Mr. Gladstone's measures would not meet the requirements
of the case. What have they offered in place of it ? Nothing but
a system of intensified restrictive government, which increases the
race-hatred which has been so long indulged in by Englishmen, and
unless the Irish people had been well advised, would have led to
increased resentment on the part of that people.

I am, dear Sir,

Yours truly,

John Barran.

Rev. S. Lloyd,

PART 111

MR, GLADSTONE'S REMEDIES FOR
IRELAND'S GRIEVANCES.

Mr. Gladstone is the first great Statesman of the
century who has succeeded in popularising measures based
on the principle laid down by Mr. C. J. Fox in 1797.
Mr. Fox then declared that it w^as his desire to have Irish
Government regulated by Irish notions and Irish prejudices
and he said, *' I firmly believe that the more she is under
Irish government the more she will be bound to English
interests."

This was no new idea to Irish Statesmen. It was the
position taken up by Grattan and Flood, and by Sir John
Parnell, as well as by most of the great Irish leaders who
preceded them. But English Premiers during the chief
part of this century, have clung tenaciously to the principle
enunciated by the English Cabinets of the 17th and i8th
centuries, viz., that Ireland should be ruled in the interests
of England, by English ideas of government, and should
simply be governed in the same way as England. They
have ignored the want of similarity in the conditions of the
two countries, and have refused- to note the race-
distinctions between the inhabitants of both islands.

Mr. Disraeli with acute perception of the necessities
of Ireland, and being at the time untrammelled by the

.78

exigencies of office, declaimed strongly against the idea,
and the Tory Cabinet of Lord Salisbury, with the Unionist
buttresses and their candid friend Lord Randolph Churchill
are acting in opposition to a principle at one time laid
down by the great chief, now departed from the arena of
this life. Modern Elishas, upon whose shoulders the
mantle of the great political Elijah has fallen, are showing
their superiority to the dead seer, by reverting to a
principle of government which he has declared to be
erroneous and impotent. The great difference to be
observed between the legislation of Mr. Gladstone and
that of the Tory Party is, that while the latter desire to
continue the plan of governing Ireland by English-made
laws and English notions, Mr. Gladstone is anxious to
bring Irish government into harmony with native ideals,
sustained by native forces, so that confidence in the admin-
istrative executive may be secured, and the people of
Ireland may be induced to render to the law, not a sullen
submission, but a wise, cheerful, and prompt obedience.

A New Era of Legislation.

A new era dawned upon the history of Irish legisaltion
after the futile Fenian Insurrection of 1867. Previously
the Statesmen of England appeared satisfied with the
repression by force of Irish disloyalty. But now Mr.
Gladstone's great aim was directed at the removal of
Irish disaffection by the destruction of Irish grievances.
He sought to secure greater confidence in English fairness,
and to make the Union between England and Ireland one
not of force but of love and of a common interest equally
recognised by the democracy of both countries. In the
year above named, the Irish nation was in the throes of
revolution. For some time previously, men secretly met

179

for the purpose of preparing, if need be, for opposing the
English claims by force of arms. Fenianism, like
Nihilism in Russia, honeycombed the life of the people.
It was reported that cellars were used, even in Yorkshire,
for the purpose of drilling the Irish manhood, and fitting
them to take part in the coming strife. The embers of
rebellion were being fanned into a flame by the tardiness
of English governments in granting reforms, and by the
heartlessness with which the landlords of Ireland enforced
their exactions, supported by the authorities at Dublin
Castle. It was at this crisis that Mr. Gladstone came
forward with his resolutions for dealing with the anomaly
of the Irish Church.

The Irish Church.

Whatever may be said in favour of the Established
Church of England by its doughty defenders, it is now
generally acknowledged that the Irish establishment was
practically indefensible. This became clear, during the
progress of the debate. It was the Church of a dominant
minority, and it had been considered by the majority of the
population as a part of the garrison, by which a foreign
power kept them in subjection, and under the pretence of
rendering them religious service, fleeced them of their
hard-earned gains. The brilliance of Mr. Disraeli, the
glib impetuous speech of Mr. Gathorne Hardy, and tha
dashing impulsive oratory of the late Lord Derby — the
Rupert of debate — all failed to make out a substantial
case for the maintenance of the Irish Church System. As
a missionary church it had failed. The wisdom of its
prelates and the devotion and piety of many of its
ministers failed to commend it to the Irish mind. To the
large number of Catholics it represented an arrogant and

i8o

tyrannical mistress, and they were angry at being compelled
to tolerate and maintain in the name of religion, a Church,
the ministries of which they rejected, while they looked
upon its ministers as the liveried and subservient creatures
of a conquering State. To the Irish the system reeked of
tyranny, extortion, and favouritism, and they regarded it as
opposed to those principles which are the basis of true
religious faith. Dean Swift wrote unsparingly of the evils
of the Irish Church system. The prelates were drawn
chiefly, and almost entirely from England. The Irish
ecclesiastics of the Church itself were consistently over-
looked. Swift said that Ireland was like a hospital, where
the poor for whom it was built were starved, while the
house officials grew rich and fat. The best livings were
given to men in England who did not understand the
Irish people. Many of the Clergy were absentees drawing
large sums from the livings, and neglecting the spiritual
work. Bishops were known, who had never been in their
dioceses for twenty years but had lived in England, and
sold their benefices as they became vacant. Archbishop
Bolton said that " a true Irish bishop has nothing more
to do than to eat, drink, grow fat, rich, and die." Dean
Swift, however, with his usual humour said that the
explanation of the matter was that ** excellent and moral
men have been selected on every occasion of vacancy,
^ut it unfortunately has uniformly happened that as these
worthy divines crossed Hounslow Heath on their way to
Ireland to take possession of their bishoprics, they have
regularly been robbed and murdered by the highwaymen
frequenting that common, who seize upon their robes and
patents, come over to Ireland, and are consecrated bishops
in their stead."

In 1849 ^^- John Bright said "I assert that the

I8l

Protestant Church in Ireland is at the root of the evils of
that country."

Mr. McCeoghegan asserts that during the reigns of
Henry VIII., Edward VI., Elizabeth and James I., **not sixty
of the Irish embraced the Protestant religion." The reason
of this is stated by Mr. Godkin, "because the Reformation
would have been more truly called the Confiscation " and
" because there is at this moment scarcely an Irish noble-
man, inheriting an ancient property who does not owe the
bulk of it to the confiscated lands of the Church."

The Church Degraded by Alliance with the State.

Dr. Macartney, Dean of Melbourne in 1874, pub-
lished a pamphlet in which he said that ** England
laboured for centuries to degrade the Church of Christ
into a political tool. So far from the experiment of
attempting to convert or benefit Ireland through her
national Church having been tried for 300 years, discoun-
tenance, neglect, or open persecution has attended every
exhibition of spirituality, within her own bosom, or
of missionary exertion without. Her confidence has been
gained to betray, her wealth and honours used to corrupt
her, she has been feasted like Isaac to be deceived,
invited like Tamar to the fraternal mansion, to be defiled
and then cast out."

Raumer, the German Historian, who visited Ireland
in 1835, says, " Acts of intolerance and injustice deepened
the hate of the Irish to the new faith. The Protestantism
that was bolstered by wrong was hated and despised, and
the evils of government were associated with the Church
which the Protestant rulers maintained in opposition to
the traditions and desires of the people." Sydney Smith
said of the Irish Church, ** There is no abuse like it in all

I82

Europe, in all Asia, in all the discovered parts of Africa,
and in all we have heard of Timbuctoo.

Count Cavour, the great Italian Statesman, was a
firm friend of England's, and his admiration of English
Institutions was expressed with no reticent tongue, yet of
the Irish Church he wrote, "It remains to the Catholics a
representative of the cause of their miseries, a sign of
defeat and oppression. It exasperates their sufferings,
and makes their humiliation keenly felt."

In the early part of the century, the progress of the
Church was associated with open rebellion and bloodshed.
The system of tithes was in operation, and the tithe dues
were gathered in by military force from the fields of the
poor peasantry. Sydney Smith says, " With Henry II.
came in tithes to which in all probability about one million
of lives have been sacrificed in Ireland.

The Tithe Agitation.

There was nothing that filled the Catholics with
greater repugnance to the Protestant Faith in Ireland than
the imposition and gathering of tithes. Every visit of the
tithe collector was a reminder of the injustice of the
Church and the humiliation of the nation. Those who
did not avail themselves of the services of the Established
Church were compelled to pay for the service of its
ministers. It was a badge of inferiority placed upon the
neck not only of Roman Catholics, but of dissenters of all
the sects. Nonconformist Protestants, as well as Catholics
regarded the Clergy as professional officers of the English
Government. Poor tenants, whose children were hollow-
eyed and shrunken in frame, were compelled to give the
food their family needed, to support ministers whom they
detested because they represented spoliation and wrong.

•83

The clergyman and the tithe proctor rode into the fields
and selected the tenth of the crops, but invariably refused
to take the tenth child and support it. Tithes were
resisted. Cattle and crops seized could not find a pur-
chaser. Blood was shed in the gathering of an impost
required to support ministers of a gospel of peace and
glad tidings. The clergy, themselves suffered, for as the
tithes were part of their stipulated income, when they
were deprived of them, they were often thrown into depths
of poverty, the parishoners frequently looking on at the
sufferings of the clergy without compunction or regret.

The tithe question was for nearly fifty years of the
present century and during a large part of the 1 8th century
a constant subject of trouble. Mr. Grattan in 1787 tried
vainly to induce the government to settle this burning
question by the removal of its most obnoxious features.
In 1833 the government confessed its inability to collect
the tithes, and proposed at a cost of £993, S^^ to buy up
the arrears of tithes for the years 1831, 1832, 1833, and to
levy this sum in the shape of a land-tax, on all lands, to
be spread over ten half-yearly payments, until the land-
lords had repaid the amount. When O'Connell succeeded
in securing a clause in the government measure by which
a reduction of 40 per cent, on the composition was to be
allowed to the payers of the tax, the House of Lords
threw it out. O'Connell opposed the Government method
of settling the question, for he knew that though the land-
lords paid the tax in the first instance, it would ultimately
in the great majority of cases have to be paid by the
tenants in the form of an increased rental. The tithes had
often been farmed to a tithe - proctor who secured
re-imbursement by exercising the most ruthless rapacity.
Police batons and military bayonets were the weapons

184

employed in the gathering of an impost required for the
support of the kingdom of Him who came to reveal
Divine Love to man, and to proclaim the glad tidings of
peace and goodwill. The cost of this tithe-gathering was
also very great, and it is roughly estimated that the nation
paid twice as much in securing this unpopular and unjust
demand as the total amount received. It was an infliction
on the poorest part of the community to sustain the Church
of a wealthy minority. A catholic landlord a little more than
forty years since was able to say — " I pay tithes in eight
parishes. In the whole of these parishes there is not one
church or glebe, or one single resident clergyman. I am
not aware that there is a single Protestant in the whole
eight parishes ; and I do not believe that Divine Service
according to the Protestant ritual has been celebrated in
any since the Reformation." And these parishes were not
isolated cases. At least 199 similar ones could be found.

Conversion of Tithes into a Rent-charge.

In 1 838 Lord Melbourne took the first steps in the
direction of Disestablishment by doing as intimated above,
viz., converting the tithes into a rent-charge or land-tax,
payable first of all by the landlords. This, however, while
it removed the obnoxious method of collecting the tithes
did not afford absolute satisfaction to the people. In
most cases the landlords seized the opportunity of raising
the rents so as to cover the sum which the government had
determined should be paid by the landlord to the rector.

Catholic landlords, were especially embittered because
they were now made tithe-proctors of a Church they
hated and condemned. Still, on the whole, the bitterness
was mitigated, and the tithes continued to be paid in an
indirect, instead of a direct way. But the sting of an

■§5

Unaccepted Church system still remained fixed with venom
in Irish life. In the Parish Church that was neat and
tidy, the parson and clerk with occasionally a listener or
two met to worship, while in some hovel near, hundreds
of eager Catholics took part in the weekly devotions.

Condition of Catholic Places of Worship.
j\Ir. GoDKiN quoting from waitings of Mmisters of
the Protestant Church, says, "While the penal laws were
in force, the Roman Catholic Clergy were obliged to
administer spiritual consolation to their flocks rather
according to their temporary convenience than any
systematic plan. No places of public worship were
permitted, and the clergyman moved his altar, books and
everything necessary for the celebration of his religious
rites from house to house, among such of his flock as
were enabled in this way to support an itinerant domestic
Chaplain, while for the poorer part some ivaste house or stable
in a remote or retired situation was selected, and here the
service was silently and secretly performed, unobserved by
the public eye."

As years rolled on, and the spirit of toleration grew,
the secrecy was removed, but still the Catholics were
unable to maintain a dominant Protestantism and also
erect commodious places for their own form of worship.
This was ever to them a cause of extreme rancour and
enmity. Mr. Godkin says, *' appeals were made to the
British Legislature on behalf of the Irish Catholics, and
made in vain, which I verily believe would have melted
the stern fanaticism of Turks if made by Greeks."

In the Report on Public Instruction, evidence of the
religious needs of Catholics were sworn to on oath. An
M.P., Mr. D. Browne stated that on festivals, such as

i86

Christmas or Easter, he had seen from lo to 15 times as
many people kneeling outside on the road, as the Chapel
could contain. Colonel Carey, the Agent to the Duke
of Devonshire, said, " That the places of worship on his
Grace's property were very wretched thatched Chapels, so
irregular in the line of their roof that they looked like
several cabins joined together."

The Parish Priest of Skibbereen stated that he had a
Chapel which was so decayed that it was in danger of
tumbling down upon the people. It could not hold half
the number of persons who attended the services each
Sunday, and therefore, Mr. Collins said, " you may see
them in severe weather under the pelting of storms, with
their hats off, kneeling in the mud." The Earl of
Kingston corroborated this testimony, saying, " There is
not room for one-third of the congregation. Anybody
travelling through Ireland on a Sunday will see them
kneeling all about the Chapel yards and in the streets.
They have no means to build.

The Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, Dr. , Kelly, did
much to raise voluntary contributions for the erection of
suitable places of worship, but he stated before the Com-
mission "that there were in the Archdiocese 15 or 18
slated Chapels, and 8 or 10 in progress; the remainder of
106 places of worship were wretched thatched cabins,
none of them sufficiently capacious to contain the con-
gregation, and in many places the public prayers were
celebrated in the open air, having no covering but the
canopy of heaven."

Refusal of Governments to help the Catholics.

Many private individuals among the Protestant
Churches were ashamed of this condition of things and

i87

aided the Catholics, but the Government refused to vote
" one shilling " for the building of Churches for the poor
and oppressed Catholics. When William Pitt secured
the passing of the Act of Union, it was understood that
he would immediately do something to remedy this
grievance, but when he suggested a State provision for the
Catholic Priesthood, and the emancipation of Irish
Catholics, the King and the Tories crushed it out of life.
And during the century, while hundreds of thousands were
** voted from the Imperial Exchequer for the purposes of
the Established Church, and in particular of the erection
of ^Protestant Churches, the Parliament persistently refused
to aid the Catholics. A rich Protestant Church, with
comparatively few worshippers, already endowed and
supported by tithes and confiscated estates, was further
aided by large grants, while " the sons of peasants were
left kneeling in the mud, under the canopy of heaven,
exposed to rain and storm. "f

Government Grants to the Church of
THE Rich.

From 1 79 1 to 1803 the Board of First Fruits granted
to the wealthy Church of the minority viz. : the Protestants
the sum of ;^5oo in 88 cases ; making a total of / 44,000.

During the same period for Clergymen's Houses they
granted ;^ioo in 116 cases ; making a total of ;^i 1,600.

From a Parliamentary return ordered in 1826, it

appears that since the Act of Union the following

amounts had been voted by Parliament up to that date : —

Gifts for Building Churches /^Z2^,g^6

Loans ,, ,, ;^286,572

so that there was a total of ^511,538 for building

+ Godkin, " Land War," p. 536.

Protestant Churches in 25 years. But that is not all.
During the same period

Gifts were made for Glebes . . ;!f6i,484
Gifts for buildingGlebe Houses/^144,734
Loans for the same purpose -jf 222, 291
making a total for Glebes and Glebe Houses of /'428,509.
Thus between the years 1791 and 1826 the establishment
obtained for Churches and Glebes /^94o,047. Is there
any wonder that while the parishes were helped so liberally
that the Bishops when they died were able to leave large
fortunes to their children, and bring them into the ranks
of the Aristocracy. Twenty Bishops left a personality
of /'86i,868, or ^43,093 on an average for each Bishop.
In 1831 a Census of Ireland showed that the inhabi-
tants numbered 7,767,400. It was estimated that of these
the Protestants numbered 800,000, while nearly 7,000,000
were Roman Catholics. For the 800,000 people the
Protestant Church provided 4 Archbishops, 32 Bishops,
and 1385 Benefices. The revenues of the Church
amounted to ;^865,ooo per year. The tithes, chiefly
contributed by Catholics were of the annual value of
/^62o,ooo. Some of the Bishops received large amounts.
The Bishop of Derry had/ 12,000 a year. The benefices
ranged from £\o to /^2,8oo per annum. Rectors, in
whose parishes there were ten or twelve Protestants,
including the family at the rectory took as much as ^800
or ^1,000 as annual stipend, besides profits arising from
glebe lands and Church Cess. The measures of 1833
reformed some of these things, but the great evil remained
that the Catholics were compelled to support a Church
which they believed to be associated with a tyrannous and
foreign yoke. In the year 1871 the gross income of two
Archbishops and ten Bishops amounted to ;^58,03i — the

total income of the Church reached /^6 13, 984 — while the
actual members of the Church reached only 668,000, as
compared with a Roman Catholic population of 4,140,000.
But in spite of all the representations of the Irish
Party, the English Parliament time after time refused to
believe that there was in Ireland any earnestness on the
question, or any real grievance. It is only a sentimenta
grievance they said ! Men who talk like this forget that
nations have feelings as well as individuals, and when the
spirit of a nation is aggrieved and she believes herself to
be oppressed, the injustice that oppresses make the
apparently sentimental grievance a real one. But men
in England, like the ostrich that buries its head in the
sand, could see no danger. It was a fools paradise in
which many lived ; but there came a rude awakening.

Mr. Gladstone and the Clerkenwell
Explosion.

The Fenian movement, and at last the dread Clerken-
well explosion, came as a hideous surprise to many in the
nation, and showed the deep hatred of the Irish people,
and their desperate determination no longer to be content
to live under this gigantic spoliation and wrong carried out
in the supposed interests of religion.

Mr. Gladstone saw this, and finding that now at last
the people of England were aroused, stepped forth to
proclaim with loud and commanding voice the principle
that should guide English Government in Ireland. Tories
have persistently misrepresented Mr. Gladstone's references
to the Clerkenwell explosion. They have obstinately
refused to see the meaning of the speech, when it has
been explicitly explained. If they did not so repeatedly
announce themselves as the Educated Party we should

igo

fancy that plain etymological meanings were beyond the
grasp of their mind. But are they not honourable men ?
Of course ! For was not Lord Nelson an honourable man
when he put the telescope to his blind eye ? None are so
blind as those who will not see. The black owlet of
Coleridge's Poem dropped his heavy fringed eyelid and
said I cannot see the light. It would be a wonder if any-
one could see who resolutely shut his eyes. The Tories
have declared that Mr. Gladstone, by speaking of the
Clerkenwell explosion, offered a premium to violent des-
peradoes to secure political notoriety by crime and violence.
He did nothing of the sort, but simply pointed to what was
a fact, viz., that Englishmen had refused to believe in the
reality of an Irish grievance, and were careless in
investigating it until the Clerkenwell explosion and the
riots in Manchester came to startle them into a belief in its
reality. And now that the nation was aroused, he saw a
Statesman's golden opportunity for relaxing the oppressive
bonds that fettered religious life in Ireland.

Sydney Smith, more than 60 years ago, expressed
his opinion as to the need of earnest agitation in order to
secure Irish reforms by saying, ** The mild and the long-
suffering may suffer for ever in this world. If the Catholics
had stood with their hands before them simpering at the
Earls of Liverpool and the Lords Bathurst of the time,
they would not have been emancipated until the year of
our Lord four thousand. As long as the patient will suffer
the cruel will kick." In quoting this, I must not be
understood as approving of the Clerkenwell explosion and
the Fenian movement, but as simply calling attention to
the wisdom of Mr. Gladstone's action, in seizing the
moment for reforming the Church, when the Irish people,
acting on the advice of Sydney Smith, had refused any

191

longer to lie still under the infliction of so great an
injustice.

Sir Robert Peel and the Irish Church.

In 1828 Sir Robert Peel said ** The Protestant
Constitution in Church and State must be maintained at
all hazards and at any means ; the maintenance of it is a
question of principle, and every concession or compromise
is the sacrifice of principle to a low and vulgar expediency.
This is easily said, but how is Ireland to be governed ?
How is the Protestant Constitution in Church and State
to be maintained in that part of the Empire ? Again, I
anticipate the reply. By the overwhelming sense of
people of Great Britian, by the application, if necessary,
of physical force for the maintenance of authority, by the
employment of the organized strength of government, the
police and the military to enforce obedience to the law."
Here was the modern imitation of Uzzah supporting the
ark with vengeance. But in 1868 the greater disciple of
Sir Robert Peel, advancing with the increased charity and
enlightenment of 19th Century civilization, presented to
the House of Commons his famous resolutions in favour
of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church.

In spite of Gathorne Hardy's defiant opposition.
Lord Stanley's temporising delay, and Mr. Disraeli's
ostentatious imitation of James Fitz-James — Mr. Gladstone
was triumphant in the encounter. The Government
appealed to the country, and were defeated at the polls,
and Mr. Gladstone stepped into place and power amid the
enthusiastic hurrahs of a nation bent on reforming a grave
and hoary injustice.

In his bill, Mr. Gladstone, like a true and living son
of the Church, tried to make the change felt as little as

possible to the Protestant Bishops and Curates. Vested
interests were safeguarded — the Constitution of the Church
was carefully drawn up, so as to avoid future difficulty or
schism, and a large surplus of money was set apart for the
relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering.

Speeches of Mr. Bright and Mr. Lowe.
The Speeches of Mr. Bright, and Mr. Lowe, were
among the brightest features of the debate. Mr.
Gladstone had pointed out that with the surplus of
money, provision might be made for those who suffered
from various afflictions, and that institutions for the blind,
deaf, and dumb might be sustained as well as reformatories,
homes for the training of nurses, and county infirmaries.
Mr. Bright emphasized this purpose of Mr. Gladstone's.
He pointed out how much better the money would be
spent in sustaining these institutions, than in maintaining
a clergy three times more numerous than the requirements
of the population. He said, with an outburst of the
truest eloquence — *' We can do but little it is true. We
cannot re-illumine the extinguished lamp of reason ; we
cannot make the deaf to hear ; we cannot make the dumb
to speak ; it is not given to us

From the thick film to purge the visual ray,
And on the sightless eyeballs pour the day :

but at least we can lessen the load of affliction, and we
can make life more tolerable for vast numbers who suffer."
Mr. Robert Lowe — now Lord Sherbrooke — excelled
even his most brilliant orations in the magnificence of his
attack on this religious despotism. He said " The Irish
Church is founded on injustice ; it is founded on the
dominant rights of the few over the many, and shall not
stand. You call it a Missionary Church — if so, its mission
is unfulfilled. As a Missionary Church it has failed

193

utterly. Like some exotic brought from a far country with
infinite pains and useless trouble, it is kept alive in an
ungrateful climate, and an uncongenial soil. The curse
of barrenness is upon it ; it has no leaves, it bears no
blossoms, it yields no fruit. Cut it down — why cumbereth
it the ground."

How THE Money was divided.
The gross value of the Irish Church property was
estimated at sixteen millions — of this sum five millions
went to the incumbents. yf 1,700,000 was given as
compensation to curates, a^d certain of the laity.
/^5 00,000 went to remunerate men and churches for the
loss of private endowments. The grant that had been
made to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, and
Regium Donum, or gift of King Charles II. to the
Presbyterians of Ulster swallowed up ;^i,25o,ooo. The
rest ^7,000,000 was reserved to be applied to the relief of
those who suffered from calamities referred to in Mr.
Bright's speech. Only a few years later a large portion of
of the amount was lent to Irish landlords to aid them, one
per cent, being charged for the loan, after they had had
the money for two years without percentage.

The Bluster of Orangeism.

Of course the wildest excitement prevailed in Ulster.
The defenders of privilege and class, and of a protected
religion were furious. One said it was a national sin ;
another called upon the Queen to jeopardise her crown
rather than see the Church of God destroyed. In Exeter
Hall, Mr. Gladstone was stigmatised as a traitor to his
Queen, his country, and his God. One minister of religion
called the Cabinet a " Cabinet of brigands." Another
christened Mr. Gladstone "Judas Iscariot Gladstone."

But it was all senseless frothing at the lips of disappointed
men. Nobody seemed any the worse for it. Everybody
seemed the better, the kifuriated clergymen cast the bile
out, and were relieved, while Mr. Gladstone was the more
endeared to the people, because of the noble way in which
he had raceived the unreasoning attacks. The Church
was not injured, but was vastly improved. She was left
free to do her spiritual work without being handicapped
by her connection with an intolerant and oppressive
system. Her coffers were stj^ll full, and her ministers were
still well paid ; and the Irish Catholics were able to
rejoice that now no stupendous and frOwning ecclesiasticism
buttressed by force, overtopped the national life, or over-
shadowed ttiat free religious equality, that ought to be the
birthright of every child of God, in every land under the
sun.

Another Reforai.

Scarcely a year passed away after the Disestablishment
of the Irish Church, before Mr. Gladstone again stepped
forward to grapple with another huge abuse. The Tories
were again maddened by anger and the Public Halls rang
with the clamour of men who have ever supported land-
lordism and the wealthier classes in their conflict with the
strengthening Democracy. To these, Mr. Gladstone was
now like Herod, who, when he had killed James, the
brother of John, with the sword, proceeded further to take
Peter also ; " He has destroyed the National Church ! "
they cried, " and now he aims at destroying the absolute
rights of landlords." How they longed for the palmy
days of Palmerston, and wished that his voice could ring
from tha halls of the dead, and emphasize his assertion
1!hat '^* TenanJt right is la»dlord -^ong."

195

The Irish Land System.
I have already referred to the large agricultural
interests of Ireland, and to the fact that by the crippling
of the Irish manufactures, the people had been thrown
upon the land for a living. There was nothing else for
them to do. Their choice was between emigration,
obtaining a bit of land for cultivation, and death.
Patriotism and love of nationality appealed against
emigration, and all the love of life found in human nature
protested against death, so they clung tenaciously to the
land as their only means of salvation from expatriation or
death. And yet their hold upon the land was feeble and
precarious. They had no security for improvements
except in the case of those who lived in Ulster, and there
what was called Tenant Right, was a provincial custom
and not a statute-law. They had no compensation for
disturbance, no certainty of tenure, no guarantee of per-
manency in their holdings, however much they improved
them. They lived from hand to mouth, afraid to improve
their land, or build neat cottages, or make the present
ones tidy and respectable in appearance, lest the landlord
should take his premium on the improvements by increas-
ing the rent. The more labour and money a tenant put
into the soil, the more it was endeared to him, and yet the
more he was in the power of the landlord and his
middlemen, who were able to secure a rack-rent by the
threat of eviction. The holders of the farms were merely
tenants-at-will, and were liable to be dispossessed at any
time, at the mere whim of the landlord or his agent. A
rascally landlord was able to raise a tenant's rent £/\. per
annum, because the tenant at his own expense, had
removed the old thatched roof of his house, and put a
slated one on. It was thought by this expenditure that he

196

was doing so well on the farm that he could afford to pay
more rent. The rents were taxes on industry and enter-
prise. The middlemen acting between the landlords and
the tenants were often placed in great difficulty. The
landlord, absentee as he was, spent his money out of the
country where it was raised. At times he wanted larger
sums for the luxuries of London and the Continent, and
for the extravagances of his sons and daughters, and so
the middleman, by putting the screw on the tenant, had to
raise more money, or else incur the obloquy of his
employers. Some of the landlords themselves were in
debt, and were feeling the screw of Jewish money-lenders,
and they were " between the devil and the deep sea."
Money they must have to save foreclosure and bankruptcy
and it mattered not who suffered or starved, so long as the
landlords were able to keep up a respectable appearance.
The farms were exploited and the tenants starved to satisfy
the rapacity and greed of money-lenders.

Shakespeare represents Brutus, as being far ahead of

the so called Christian Landlords of Ireland, for he

says : —

" By heaven ! — I would rather coin my heart

And drop my blood for drachmas than to wring

From the hard hands of peasants their vile trash,

By any indirection."

Freedom of Contract in Ireland.

People have said, why did not the tenants refuse to
pay, and leave their holdings ? Was there not freedom of
contract ? Of course there was freedom of contract,
similar to that which exists between a starving man and
the only baker in the town, or, to that which exists between
thirsty travellers in a wilderness and the possessor of the
only well. The question, "why did not the tenants leave

197

their farms ? " is the outcome of the crassest ignorance
of the subject. Their very life, and the lives of their
children depended upon their staying. If they left what
could they do for a living ? The labour market was
overstocked, there was no capital in the country for
manufacturing purposes* The only alternative was
emigration or death, unless they threw themselves into the
already crowded unions of the land. Besides, they had all
their little capital invested there in the soil and buildings,
and to leave would be to re-commence life without capital,
with the burden of years resting upon their shoulders,
their strength diminished, to pass into tke condition of a
mere labourer in a foreign land. Many of them did this,
and thousands of the emigrants soon found graves in
other soil. The privations of the people were terrible,
their food scanty and poor, and the money sent to them
by friends and relatives in America and Australia went to
make up the rent. I am persuaded that many of the
landlords if they had seen the misery and despair of the
people would have relented, but they were far from the
heart-rendering scenes, and they preferred the bliss of
ignorance to the anguish which must have come to
them, had they gazed upon the wan faces and stunted
limbs of the Irish children. The land was held at the mercy
of an absentee landlord class, who could evict, and thereby
pass a sentence of perpetual poverty or of death upon men,
women, and children, whose wails never reached their
oppressors amid the music of Parisian operas, or the
chink of the dice in the hell of the Monte Carlo gambling
saloons.

Influence of the Land System on Irish Character.

The system itself tended to degrade the Irish

character, and it bred laziness and a condition of living

198

not far removed from starvation. The system was wrongly
grounded. One writer says, that when he was in Ireland
he had a passion for flower gardens and clean yards, and
said to one of the tenants — why don't you clear away
these dry heaps, and plant flowers to climb up the walls of
your houses ? ** Begor Sir," was the reply **if I make the
place so nate as that, the agynt will say I am able to pay
more rint."* The Devon Commission of 1843 condemned
the Penal Code, the Confiscations of Elizabeth and
James I., and the wars of Cromwell for the influence they
had exerted on the landed property of Ireland, and for the
restrictions necessitated by them. The Commissioners
felt that even the measures of 1771, 1777, 1782, and 1793,
by which the stringent laws aff"ecting Roman Catholics
were relaxed had been passed in the interests of the
landlords, who had found that confining the land to
Protestant tenants did not pay. I cannot deal with all the
features of the land system in this small pamphlet. They
may be studied by the English Student with great advan-
tage in larger works. Some things should, however, be
noted. The ** lease for a life " by which one life held the
land, might have been good, had the land been held as in
England where the landlord feels the influence of public
opinion, and where he makes the improvements on the
soil. But in Ireland, when the tenant died, and his son
desired the farm, an additional price was placed upon it,
and as the father's legacy to his children was chiefly the
improvements he had secured in his land, when his son
objected to pay and left the holding, he lost all hold of
his father's legacy also. At one time one-seventh of the
land of Ireland was held under this provision.

* A. M. Sullivan, Young Ireland,

199

Ulster Ten^nt-righT|.

The tetiant-right of Ulster was a very old custom.
Public bodies, such as some of the London Companies, and
individuals who held large tracts of land, let out portions
to tenants who took the entire responsibility and paid to
the landlord a specified sum. The tenant as in the other
provinces made all the improvements, but was allowed
freedom in management, and was able to obtain from his
successor in the farm a sum of money which was paid a?s
remuneration for what had been expended in the land,
and also as a purchase of the good-will of the farm.
This was the first instalment of the joint-proprietorship in
the soil, which was one of the main principles of Mr.
Gladstone's Land Act of 1870. Sums equal to i o or 1 5 years
purchase were at times given in Ulster for the tenant-right.
The districts where it prevailed flourished, while other
districts declined where it was not in vogue. One great
reason, therefore, of the difference in the appearance of
Ulster farms and those in other parts is to be found in the
difference of the land system that prevailed. Landlords
resolutely refused for years to allow the customs of the
Ulster tenants to be extended to the people of Leinster,
Munster, and Connaught.

Mr. Justin McCarthy says, that '' offering land for
hire in Ireland was like offering money on loan to needy
spendthrifts: any terms would be snatched at by the
desperate borrower of to-day, no matter what was to
happen to-morrow. When the tenant had got hold of his
piece of land, he had no idea of cultivating it to the best
of his strength and opportunities. Why should he ? The
moment his holding begun to show a better appearance,
that moment he might look to having his rent raised, or
to being turned out in favour of some other competitor

who offered higher terms for occupation. Why should he
improve ? Wherever he was turned out of the land he
would have to leave his improvements for the benefit of
the new comer. He was therefore content to scratch the
soil instead of cultivating it. He extracted all he could
from it in his short day. He lived from hand to mouth,
from hour to hour."*

If the tenant became a labourer, he had to submit to
receive wages, which were often 6d. a day, and at times
less even than that. In addition, the employment was
only occasional and uncertain. To sustain life, potatoes
were an absolute necessity, and yet the wages of these
labourers were insufficient to secure a full supply of this
watery diet, and there were 2,235,000 persons who
were out of work or in distress for 30 out of the 52 weeks
every year. It became a necessity of existence that some-
thing should be done to eke out the miserable wages
received in Ireland. In 1835, the Commission reported
that in Ireland there were 1,131,000 agricultural labourers
whose average earnings were only from 2/- to 2/6 a week.
The Devon Commission in 1845 suggested remedies for
this lamentable state of things, but as Mr. Gladstone
pointed out in his speech in introducing the Land Bill of
1870, a quarter of a century had elapsed and the terrible
blots remained a disgrace to English government and a
cause of misery to the Irish people. Commissions are
miserable and useless things, unless their findings are em-
bodied in wise and remedial legislation.

The Law and Private Contracts.

When Mr. Gladstone came forward with his remedy,
the Tories cried out '* The law has no right to interfere

* History of our own times.

with private contracts ! " That it was a startling invasion
on what were considered to be the rights of property is
true. But so was the Encumbered Estates Act of 1849,
which interfered with the possessions of landlords in what
were considered to be the more pressing and legitimate
claims of the Community. But when men claimed that it
was beyond the province of the Legislature to overpower
the claims of landlordism, they were treading on unsafe
ground. Their opposition made many persons enquire
" how have the rights of landlordism been established ;
have they been the outgrowth of native customs and
original rights ; are they indigenous to the soil, or have
they been planted there by a later hand ? " Research into
the history of the Irish race proved that landlordism was
not a native product, and that the rights and claims of
Irish landlords were not established by traditional usage,
but were the outcome of spoliation and confiscation, and
were the gifts of the Legislature, and of the Monarchs after
the conquest of the island. People saw that landlordismjn
Ireland was the creature of law, and of authority acting in
the place of law ; that it was opposed to the native clan
system, and that it had been imposed upon the people by the
power of the few against the will of the many inheriting
the island. They saw, too, that it had been made
dependent upon feudal conditions of military service and
military support which were not carried out by the owners
of the soil. The more the question was considered, the
more fully the foreign character and the injustice of the
institution were recognised and many people cried loudly
** that what the law had made unjustly the law could
unmake with justice." It was not until 1850 that the
English people began to read these things in their true
light, and to wake up to the enormity of the evil that was

202

impoverishing and injuring the sister-isle, and now that
2 0 years had passed, they were prepared to support Mr.
Gladstone in his endeavour to remedy this grievance. It
was then that the English people began to see that the
landlord had let land to a tenant, and then when he had spent
the best years of his life in reclaiming it, and the improved
land represented so much brain and muscle, and strength,
and years of vigour, that the landlord had stepped in and
appropriated to himself the tenant's improvements, and
turned the tenant out with spent forces and bent frame to
grapple with the difficulties of life afresh. Berkeley said
that landlords were " vultures with iron bowels," and Mr.
GoLDWiN Smith has declared that '*in the days of Elizabeth
the eagles took wing for the Spanish main, and the vultures
settled down on Ireland." The term vultures has
commended itself to these gentlemen as typical of the
character of Irish landlords, but I am persuaded that many
of them are more truly represented by the vampires who,
in fabled story, are said to suck the blood from the veins
of living victims, for these men in Ireland drained from their
living channels, health, strength, and life itself, and left the
poor aged tenants portionless and feeble to face an un-
sympathetic world, and pass from the roads and fields to the
workhouse and the grave. And what is the worse feature
of the case is that many English gentlemen who went to
Ireland honestly intending to benefit the people, became
infected with the poisonous influence of Irish landlordism.
It seemed as though, like Lot, among the people of
Sodom, they had caught the vices of the class with which
they identified themselves, or like those who looked into
the eyes of Medusa, the Gorgon, they had lost their human
characteristics, and had becorae transformed into stony,
unfeeling beings.

203

Disraeli and the Irish Question.

Discussing, on i6th February, 1844, some of the
eternal coercive *' remedies," Mr. Disraeli said : — " He
wished to see a pubHc man come forward and say what the
Irish question was. Let them consider Ireland as they
would any other country similarly circumstanced. They
had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, an
alien Church, and the weakest executive in the world.
This was the Irish question. Gentlemen would say at
once on reading of a country in such a position, the
remedy is revolution — not the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act. But the connection with England prevented
revolution. Therefore England was logically in the
position of being the cause of all the misery of Ireland.
What, then, was the duty of an English Minister ? To
effect by his policy all the changes which a revolution
would do by force ! "^*

But Mr. Disraeli did little to remedy these evils, and
it was not until 1868 and 1870 that Mr. Gladstone saw the
possibility of successfully applying his axe to the upas
tree. There is a story told which suggests the method of
English legislators. An Irish Priest once asked a milk-
man who admitted that he filled his pail occasionally from
the pump, " how do you know, Michael, when to stop
watering ? Begorra — your reverence, was the reply, we go
on watering till the customers cry out agin it." As long
as Irishmen refused to cry out in the shape of disorder
and crime, as we have seen, English Statesmen only hawked
legislation which was diluted to the weakest point. Until
Mr. Gladstone took the question in hand, Whigs and
Tories were nearly on a level in the matter, and the only
difference is stated in the humorous language of Daniel

* Hansard, Ser. hi., vol. Ixxii. p. 1016,

204

O'Connell — "A Whig Government, Sir, is like Paddy's
old hat, thrust into a broken pane. It is true it doesn't
let in much light, but at any rate it keeps out the cowld."*

The Land Act of 1870.
Mr. Gladstone had laid his ruthless hand on the
sacred ark of the Church which had so long been the
possession of Tories and their children who were dedicated
to an easy and indolent life, and now he stretched forth
his hand on the still more sacred ark of landlordism which
had always been the favourite heirloom of the educated
party of privilege and caste. But Mr. Gladstone saw that
the system was wrongly based, that the foundation was
insecure in policy and morality. And so he proceeded to
present a list of principles that should guide English
Statesmen of the future in their treatment of the land
question, and to meet the present crisis, he gave effect in
his Land Bill to the principles he had enunciated.

The Law Superior to Landlordism.
The complete and unfettered right of a landlord over
his property was overthrown. There was an assertion,
that just as the law was superior to an ecclesiastical
establishment, so it was above landlordism. There was a
recognition, too, of the partial rights of a tenant in the
land he tilled. Mr. Gladstone's bill acknowledged to
some extent, a partnership of tenant and landlord in land
cultivated or reclaimed. Just as a tenant must not injure
the property of a landlord, neither must the landlord filch
the property of the tenant. It was a great revolution and
it denied the doctrine of absolute and irresponsible owner-
ship. It asserted the right of the State to control the
landlord interest, as well as the interest of the Manufac-

* Mr. A- M. §ulliv^n. Young Ireland,

. 205

turers of the realm. It threw upon the landlord the
burden of proving his right to evict. The Ulster Tenant
Right was made a legal institution.

Compensation for Improvements.

If any tenant were disturbed, the bill provided that the
improvements belonged to him, and not to the landlord,
as heretofore, unless the landlord proved they had been
made at his expense, and that he could therefore refuse
compensation. The right of the tenants to compensation
for improvements not proved to belong to the landlords
was asserted. But the burden of proof lay with the landlords
instead of the tenants, and a special institution was arranged
to carry out the provisions of the bill. Mr. Justin
McCarthy says " It allowed the tribunals thus instituted to
take into consideration not merely the strict legal conditions
of each case, but also any circumstances that might affect the
claim of the tenant as a matter of equity. Mr. Gladstone's
great object was to bring about a state of things by virtue
of which a tenant should not be dispossessed of his
holding so long as he continued to. pay his rent, and
should in any case be entitled to full compensation for
any substantial improvements which his energy or his
capital had effected." How hard the work was, seemed to
be known to Mr. Gladstone, and he desired to give to the
tenant the value of his toil. Of American virgin soil "t
has been said, that it needed only " to be tickled with a
spade, to laugh into a harvest," but in the stony soil of the
mountain farms, much hard work and expenditure were
needed to make it produce even a moderate supply of
potatoes and market produce. The cry of the people of
Ireland had been for fixity of tenure, and Mr. Gladstone
hoped to secure this. The sequel has shown how futile

2o6

were his efforts to thwart and make sympathetic the land-
lords of the day.

Tory Opposition to the Land Bill.
But moderate as were the provisions of the bill,
the Tories opposed it tooth and nail, and the men who
now are pointing to the Act as a great revolution in
Irish landlordism, and as one of the finest efforts ever
made to exalt a fallen and poor peasantry, were the men
who toned down the measure as far as they could, and
placed all possible difficulties in its path. But the
rare genius and lofty spirit of Mr. Gladstone triumphed,
and the main features of the bill were passed into law.

Defects in the Land Bill.

The bill was a great one, though it was not perfect. It
was, however, as complete as it could be made at the time.
Still, it had many defects, which have become more
palpable now that the nation has reached an advanced
position on the question, and now that we have increased
enlightenment on the character of Irish landlords,
and the workings . of Irish landlordism. It fettered
the action of the tenant in draining, road-making,
quarrying, turf-cutting, and the making of water-courses,
and it provided that in case he violated these strict
details, eviction should not be deemed a disturbance.
Compensation was restricted in a large number of cases,
and there was not sufficient provision for compensating
those who were evicted in consequence of not paying a
rack-rent. *' Freedom of contract " was still upheld, but
when bad harvests and falling prices prevented the tenants
from paying the rent enforced upon them, their improve-
ments were confiscated, and became by law the spoil of the
landlord. But in spite of defects, the bill was a startling

207

interference with the supposed rights of landlords, and
was to some small extent a restitution to the occupiers and
tenants of the rights of which they had been despoiled.
^ It gave definite form to the assertion that property had its
duties, as well as it rights, and it declared that one of the
duties of those who possessed property was to recognise
the rights of tenants. In spite of Mr. Disraeli's
attempt to challenge and defeat the main principles
of the bHl it was carried, and on August ist, 1870, it
received the royal assent. Some of the Irish party
opposed the bill in its ultimate form, and were denounced
as paid agitators who did not want their country pacified.
The eleven members who voted against it were abused by
both parties in Parliament, and yet experience has shown
that their action was wise, and that their objections
founded on the assertion that the bill was not sufficiently
broad to meet the case, were forceful and true. Mr. T.
M. Healy, however, has said " the bill was as much as
Parliament at the the time would allow Mr. Gladstone to
grant," and the leader of the Liberal Party had therefore
again shown his knowledge of political movements in the
national life, by giving statesmanlike effect to the utmost
desiae of the country. But the result in Ireland was as
the Irish party had predicted.

Increase of Evictions.
" What happened ? As plainly foretold by them, the
Land Act of 1870 worked little benefit to the Irish
occupier. Evicticms actually increased ! In the three
years before its passing, the ejectments on notice to quit
were 4,253 ; in the three subsequent years, they reached
5,641, showing an increase of 1,388. In the next three
years they were 8,439 ! These figures represent only the
capricious evictions, aad do not incilude ejectment for

208

non-payment of rent or non-title. While it recognized
the grievous wrong done to the victim of a capricious
eviction, the Act left full power to perpetrate what it thus
admitted to be unjust. It still left the tenant at the mercy
of the cupidity, the malice, or the whim of his landlord.
Instead of giving security of tenure, it gave the County
Court Judge, at his discretion, the power of imposing on
the evicting landlord a limited pecuniary fine. In other
words, as has been well said, it gave the homeless, and
perhaps penniless tenant, "the right to a law-suit." While
it carefully fixed a maximum on the amount of com-
pensation which could be awarded to a tenant for
disturbance by the landlord, it left to a judge — too often a
landlord himself — an absolute discretion as to what amount
under that limit he might choose to award."*'

''Since 1880 the landlords have been prevented from
evicting with such ease as before that date ; but even
within the last five years they have, nevertheless, turned
out of their homes no less than 22,429 families, or
1 12,026 persons. Those families were evicted for non-
payment of exorbitant rack-rents, and a large number of
them have been partly sustained for years out of the funds
of the Irish Land League and the Irish National League.

Cruel evictions are still going on in almost every part
of Ireland."!

Failure of the Act to Grapple with
Rack-Renting.

Mr. A. J. Balfour, M.P., Chief Secretary for
Ireland under Lord Salisbury's Premiership, in a letter
written December 8th, 1887, says: — ** The law as to com-

* a Word for Ireland— Mr. T. M. Healy.
f Pamphlet on Irish Landlordism.

209

pensation for improvements is contained in the fourth
section of the Land Act of 1870. Under that section a
tenant on quitting his holding whether in consequence of
an ejectment or for non-payment of rent, or by his own
voluntary surrender, or for any other cause whatever, is
entitled to full compensation for improvements, and the
Court in making its award is governed solely by the value
of the improvements. If the ejectment has been for
non-payment of rent the landlord is of course entitled to
set off the rent in arrear, so far as it goes, against the sum
awarded for compensation." Precisely, and that is the
greatest defect of the bill. It did not grapple with rack-
renting. It allowed landlords to raise the rents, and to
threaten the tenants with eviction unless the iniquitous
demands were complied with. Mr. Healy says : — " The
fatal imperfection in the Act of 1870, however, was that,
in the vital matter of rack-renting, it provided no remedy.
Landlords could still continue to rob their tenantry as
freely as before. That "silent system" of rent-raising,
which has choked the Irish Court of Bankruptcy with
tenant-farmers, could flourish as malignantly as ever. It
afforded no protection when a grasping proprietor
demanded an increase under a threat of eviction. Before
the farmer could derive any benefit from the " protective "
clauses of the Act, he must have left his holding for ever.
And to the struggling tenant, who for long years had been
paying a rack-rent, the protection was a mockery. The
impossible rent broke him down, and the fact that he was
evicted for non-payment of it, alone excluded any claim
for compensation for disturbance, while the paltry sum
which might be awarded him for improvements was but
a poor viaticum to face the world upon. Non-payment of
one year's rent defeated the right to compensation for

210

disturbance, though under the scale provided in sec. 3,
compensation amounting to several years' rent might
otherwise be awarded."**

Protection to the rack-rented tenant was a sham.
Impossible rents still left him helpless in the hands of
hard taskmasters. To make bricks without straw was not
more difficult and slavish to the Israelite of old than to
pay a rent raised to a sum larger than the land could bear,
was difficult, and indeed impossible, to the Irish tenant.
The small amount allowed in the case of improvements
made by evicted tenants, especially when the rent owing
was deducted from it, was no real compensation for the
loss of the home, where the tenant had reared his children,
and of the land into which he had put the strength of his
early manhood. Then if he owed more than a year's rent,
as Mr. Healy shows, he could not claim compensation for
disturbance.

Are the Landlords to be " Hoisted with their
OWN Petard " ?

Perhaps one of the most obnoxious clauses is that
contained in section 4 of the bill, where the judge
is directed to " take into consideration the time during
which such tenant" may have enjoyed the advantage of
such improvements," in *' reduction of the claim of the
tenant." This clause, imported into the bill in the interests
of the landlords, admits a principle which I fancy the
representatives of their class will not be prepared
strenuously to support when they are paid out and
dismissed by the Irish people. It will materially reduce
the cost of the land to the nation if the time when the
landlords have enjoyed the advantages of rents raised on

* A Word for Ireland, p. 3.

211

tenants' improvements, and rack-rents raised on land still
unimproved, be considered "in reduction of the claim"
of the landlord. When the State disturbs the landlords,
I opine that those who hold briefs for them will not insist
upon the principle for which they demanded recognition
when the bill for the relief of the Irish tenantry was
passed in 1870. The Land Courts themselves did not
secure the confidence of the Irish people, and their
impartiality was much doubted. Law in Ireland had
ever in the experience of the men appointed to adjudicate
in the Land Courts, favoured the landlords, and it must
have been very difficult for them to overcome prejudices
and conceptions of law founded on long-standing customs.
Some of their decisions ' seemed to be based on the
principle of giving the tenants as little compensation as
possible. Different standards of compensation were set
up in the various Courts, and it was admitted by chairmen
of the Courts that they had never given the maximum
compensation allowed by the Act. The Bessborough
Commission of 1880 discovered many of the defects of
the bill, and of the administration of the Courts appointed
for making the bill operative. The Irish leaders were
desirous of supplementing the bill by other measures for
securing additional relief to the tenants, and from 1871 to
1880, no fewer than 31 measures have been rejected by
Parliament, or have been withdrawn in consequence of the
strong opposition brought against them. Mr. Gladstone's
measure was well conceived, but he could not foresee the
difficulties likely to arise, and the magnitude to which
those difficulties grew.

Penalties of Wrong-doing.
The Irish peasants of America, forced there by the

212

land laws prevailing in Ireland, in company with other
emigrants, many of whom were compelled by petty
tyrannies to leave English villages, tilled the productive
soil of the Far West so effectually as to be able to
send an abundance of produce by the cheap water
carriage to Liverpool to compete with English producers.
As a result of this prices fell, and the English and Irish
landlords and farmers have suffered from the competition
of the United States. Had these landlords treated the
people with greater kindness and less haughty self-
assertion of superiority, how much of the competition of
America would have been delayed, and how much longer
the financial gains of the landlord interest would have
been maintained ? But this is a subject for the moralist
and speculatist !

Failure of Harvests.

In addition to the competition referred to, a bad
harvest in 1877 was succeeded by a poor harvest in
1878, and a worse one in 1879, and in the last-named
year, the potato crop was almost an absolute failure.
The crop of 1876 was worth over ;^i 2,000,000, but in
1877 it sunk to ;^5, 000,000. In 1878 there was a slight
improvement, and the value of the crop rose to the sum of
^7,000,000; while in 1879, it fell to the extremely low
sum of only a little ^3,000,000. And this in a country
where the population so largely depended for their daily
food on the supply of potatoes. What stands out in grim
and dark outline is the conduct of the landlords in these
years of privation ! In proportion to the badness of the
harvests evictions increased.

In 1876 they were 1269
n 1877 „ „ 1323

213

In 1878 they were 1749

„ 1879 „ „ 2667
Further than this, in consequence of a defective harvest in
England another source of revenue was cut off from the
cottiers of Connaught, who usually came to England to
supplement by wages earned here, the money gained on
their own soil, and without which they could not pay the
landlord. It was estimated by Dr. Hancock, the Irish
official statistician, in February, 1880, that the loss of the
Connaught harvest men in 1879 from the failure of English
wages alone was ;/^ 250,000. The landlords and their allies
refused to believe in the reality of the distress. They
made out that it was only a pretence to avoid payment
of rent.

Mr. Lowther's Sagacity.

The London papers made light of the matter, and
Mr. James Lowther, the Irish Chief Secretary, had
nothing but sarcasm and jibe for the Irish leaders,
declaring that the assemblies of those who met to protest
against the high-handed exactions of the landlords, and
to appeal to the Government, were simply anti-rent
gatherings. He said, " With reference to the state of
affairs in certain parts of the West of Ireland, brought
about by what is known as the anti-rent movement, the
Government is fully alive to the necessity of dealing
promptly with it. Colonel Bruce, Deputy Inspector-
General of Constabulary has been despatched on a special
mission to the districts concerned. His duty will be
to consult with the resident magistrates and the local
constabulary, and report to the Government as to what
additional police force and special police stations may be
required to enable full protection to be afforded to all

214

persons in the exercise of their legal rights. Special
police protection will be afforded to process-servers or
others requiring it. Considerable reinforcements are being
drafted into these districts, and it has being notified to the
inhabitants that in the event of any attempt at outrage,
the cost of these measures will be levied off the neigh-
bourhood in which it occurs." — Hansard, ser. hi. vol.
ccxlvii. p. 433.*'

At last the authorities of Dublin Castle began to yield,
and in the end Relief Acts, a Seed Act, and ultimately a
Disturbance Bill were either formulated or passed. In
1 88 1 Mr. Parnell and Mr. John Dillon sent over from the
United States contributions amounting to _;^70,ooo, of
which ;^5o,ooo was directly spent in charity. The Irish
emigrants had become tired of contributing money to keep
up landlordism, while they had afterwards to provide for
their evicted relatives, and now they sent their contributions
partly to relieve distress and partly to provide machinery
for wresting justice by constitutional methods from the
unwilling hands of dominant English Statesmen. The
Lord Mayor of Dublin started a fund in the Mansion
House, and during the year distributed in seed and food
/ 181,000, a great part of which came from Australia! f

The New York Herald alone raised ;^5o,ooo; the
Canadian Government sent a large grant, and at length
the " Castle " itself was driven to make official acknow-
ledgment of the famine which its mouthpieces so long
denied. This took the shape of a letter from the Duchess
of Marlborough, the wife of the Lord Lieutenant, appeal-
ing for help in The Times (which resulted in /^i 35,000
being administered in charity from Dublin Castle) ; and

* Quoted by Mr. T. M. Healy — A Word, for Ireland, p. 123.
fHealy, p. 126.

215

then the Government, when Parliament met two months
later, was moved to pass a comical Relief Act, which
resulted in the Irish landlords being allowed to borrow out
of the Irish Church Surplus / 1,100,000, This money
was lent without interest for two years, and afterwards
bore only one per cent., and was ostensibly granted to
enable employment to be given by the proprietors in im-
proving their estates. The measure of course was a
flagrant job, and brought little benefit to any deserving
person, while the most serious allegations have been made
as to the manner in which the bulk of the money was
spent.^

But even then Mr. Lowther was not satisfied that the
land laws were wrong. Nothing could disturb his
immaculate self-complacency. Everyone else who spoke
on the subject was ignorant or selfish, he alone remained
the one infallible authority on Irish questions. To the
appeals of the Irish members to cure these disastrous
famines by an alteration of the land laws, he replied : —
'* The hon. member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) spoke of the
extension to the whole of Ireland of what is commonly
known as the Ulster tenant custom, and he says that on a
former occasion I spoke of that suggestion of his as pure,
undiluted communism. That, sir, is a statement I did
make, and which I am quite ready to repeat now. . . •
Much has been said of the present state of the land laws,
but I have no hesitation in saying that they have nothing
to do with the present state of Ireland."

The "Daily Telegraph's" Investigation.

Mr Healy has done good service by quoting in his
book, letters that appeared in the Daily Telegraph under

* Healy.

2l6

the heading of " The Distressful Country." The Special
correspondent of this prominent Tory paper, wrote : —
"The cabins of the peasantry seemed to be about the very
worst dwelHngs for human beings I had ever viewed. I
noted that many of the cottages I passed boasted no
windows, that they all had mud floors, and most of them
mud walls ; that many were insufficiently thatched ; nearly
all were shared by the family pig, as well as by the family
children ; that in the majority of cases a very slough of
mud faced the door, and that the utmost misery of appear-
ance characterised every dwelling. I have been in many
lands and have seen many so-called oppressed people at
home, but I declare that neither in the Russian steppes,
nor in the most neglected Bulgarian villages, still less in
the very poorest Hindoo hamlets, have I ever seen such
squalid kraals as the farmers of this part of Mayo inhabit.
Here they are not hidden away from public view, but front
the high road — a dreadful testimony to mismanagement
and uncleanness, such as can be met with nowhere else.
An officer of one of Her Majesty's regiments, who lately
served with honour in Zululand, declared to me that not
even in the worst parts of Cetewayo's dominions did he
come across anything so bad as here ; and I am inclined
to believe that he was not exaggerating in the slightest."

. Writing of the rents of Western tenants, the same
gentleman said : — '* Their rents seem immoderately high,
taking the Poor-law valuation as a standard. John Grady,
for example, occupies land valued at £■}, los. and pays £,^\
while Tom Ball has a still smaller holding rated at 30s.,
for which he pays ^^5 and taxes. It is manifestly impos-
sible that these men can make a living off" poor land so
heavily burdisned — land brought under cultivation by
themselves or their predecessors, without the owner

217

stirring a finger or investing a sixpence in its improvement.
The rent, in point of fact, had to be made up by labour in
England, and it is just this state of things which should be
borne in mind by people who are disposed to complain
of the Irish tenant's revolt. His life is often one of
slavery for the benefit of the men who own the soil of a
country where agriculture is the only industry."

Report of Mansion House Committee.

In the vivid report officially addressed to the Dublin
Mansion House Relief Committee on the condition of the
North Mayo peasantry in 1880, pp. 11- 13, and 34-35, Mr.
J. A. Fox says : — " I have taken the precaution of seeing
with my own eyes many of the recipients of relief in their
miserable hovels, which, so far as I have yet observed, are
a shocking reproach to the civilization of the nineteenth
century ... I do not believe that tongue, or pen, how-
ever eloquent, could truly depict the awful destitution of
some of these hovels. The children are often nearly
naked. Bedding there is none, everything of that kind
having long since gone to the pawn-office, as proved to me
by numerous tickets placed in my hands for inspection in
well nigh every hovel. A layer of old straw, covered by
the dirty sacks which conveyed the seed potatoes and
artificial manure in the spring, is the sole provision of
thousands— with this exception, that little babies sleeping
in wooden boxes are occasionally indulged with a bit of
thin, old flannel stitched on to the sacking. Men, women
and children sleep under a roof and within walls dripping
with wet, while the floor is saturated with damp, not
uncommonly oozing out of it in little pools. In one case
I asked a gaunt, starved looking man, whom I found
literally endeavouring to sleep away the hunger, where his

little children slept, when he pointed to a cotner in the
moist room, in which I could see no sign of bedding.
* Do they wear their clothes at night?' 'No.' 'How
then do they keep warm ?' 'There is,' he replied, in the
most amazing simplicity and composure, 'a deal of warmth
in children,' signifying that they obtained warmth by
huddling together like little animals. This occurred at
Carrycastle. ... I invariably found them on the
occasion of my visit crouching around the semblance of a
fire lighted on the open hearth. And this at midsummer,
showing how terribly low must be the vitality among
them. ... It was only when I was accompanied by
a Catholic priest I could get an insight into the appalling
want. Alone, some of the most destitute tried to screen
from me the poverty of their truckle beds, upon which the
straw was often so thin that I could touch the bare boards
with my hand. These received me with a dull, passive
surprise, wondering what might be the object of my
curiosity in so wretched a country. And even the priest
himself had occasionally to use no little persuasion to
overcome this modest feeling, by assuring them that I was
present in the capacity of a friend. Everywhere the
condition of the children was otherwise dreadful, besides,
there being for them nothing but the indian-meal, badly
cooked, to live upon, and the parents only too glad if the
charitable funds provided the family with half enough
even of that. Sometimes there was a miserable cow about
the premises — for in every case I am referring to the class
of small farmers, mostly residing on three to five acres of
land, which in North Mayo is generally found to be
reclaimed bog or mountain slope ; and this cow was
supplying milk, principally gratis, to a small number of
children other than the owner's, to mix with the indian-

419

meal. Occasionally people appealed privately to my
companion on no account to cut off the charitable supplies
from the possessor of the cow, seldom worth more than
few pounds, and just then unsaleable in any market, as the
animal was the hope of so many little ones. At other
times cooked cabbage, without a morsel of condiment
save salt, was found where there was no meal, and in
some instances one was found mixed with the other. But
in numerous cases there was neither milk, meal, nor
cabbage about the premises, and in those I gave some
temporary relief to fill up the interval till the next general
distribution of the local committee. Sometimes even
charity itself had failed, and the mother of the tender
young family was found absent, begging for the loan of
some indian-meal from other recipients of charitable
relief — the father being almost in every instance away in
England labouring to make out some provision for the
coming winter. Yet in the most destitute cases hardly a
word of complaint was uttered on the subject, it being a
habit with, if not the nature of, the Mayo peasant sub-
missively to ascribe his lot in the times of scarcity as well
as plenty to the ' will of Providence.' We visited more
than thirty hovels of the poor, principally in the townlands
of Culmore and Cashel, in which I beheld scenes of
wretchedness and misery wholly indescribable. In some
of those hovels evicted families had lately taken refuge, so
that the overcrowding added to the other horrors of the
situation. In one hovel, in the townland of Cashel, we
found a little child three years old — one of a family of six,
apparently very ill, with no person more competent to
watch it than an idiot sister of eighteen, while the mother
was absent begging committee relief, the father being in
England ; in another, an aged mother, also very ill, lying

210

alone and unattended, with nothing to eat save long-
cooked indian-meal, which she was unable to swallow ; in
another, in the townland of Culmore, there were four
young children, one of whom was in a desperate condition
for want of its natural food — milk — without which it was
no longer capable of eating the indian-meal stirabout, or
even retaining anything whatever on its stomach."

Gereral Gordon's Verdict.

In the south of Ireland things were little better, and
the late General Gordon, the hero of Khartoum, writing
from Roche's Hotel, Glengariff, County Cork, in Novem-
ber, 1880 (published in The Times) said: — "I must say,
from all accounts and from my own observation, that the
state of our fellow-countrymen in the parts I have named
is worse than that of any people in the world, let alone
Europe. I believe that these people are made as we are —
that they are patient beyond belief, loyal, but at the same
time broken-spirited and desperate, living on the verge of
starvation in places which we would not keep our cattle.
The Bulgarians, Anatolians, Chinese, and Indians are
better off than many of them are. ... I am not well
off, but I would offer Lord [Bantry] or his agent [Mr.
J. W. Payne, J. P.] /^i,ooo if either of them would live
one week in one of these poor devil's places, and feed as
these people do."*

The Servant Girls of America Taxed.

The Irish in America, exiled from their homes and

native soil, denuded themselves of comforts, and freely

sent their hard-earned wages to relieve the victims of the

landlords' injustices. While the gentry, who had exploited

* Quoted by Mr. T. M. Healy, pp. 116-120.

221

the country, did comparatively little for the struggling,
starving peasantry, the ** servant-girls of New York," and
the thrifty toilers on the distant farms, sent through
bankers alone, in addition to the money sent in other
ways, the returns of which were ordered to be printed by
Parliament, viz. : —

In 1848 .. /^46o,i8o

„ 1849 .. /^540,6i9

„ 1850 .. /957>o87

„ 1851 .. /^99o,8ii

It has been estimated that remittances since 1852 have
amounted to no less than ^2,000,000 a-year. This has
been chiefly the Irish landlord tax on the people of the
United States and the colonies. Lord Dufferin has
given some very interesting statistics.* He states that
between 1848 and 1864, the Irish emigrants sent back to
Ireland more than ;^ 13,000,000.

Sergeant Heron, Q.C., has supplemented this state-
ment in a paper read before the Statistical Society in 1862.
He asserts that a sum equal to one-fourteenth of the
rental of Ireland is annually received from foreign charita-
ble persons. From 1851 to 1861 ;^ii,ooo,ooo were sent
in charity to Ireland from North America, by the emi-
grants. In 1852 Ireland received a larger sum in charity
from America than was realized by the profits of the trade
of exporting horned cattle to England.

Growth of Mr. Parnell's Influence.

In March of 1880, Lord Beaconsfield dissolved
Parliament and issued his letter to the Duke of Marl-
borough— the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland — which attracted
so much notice from friends and opponents. The Irish

* " Irish Emigration and Tenure of L^nd in Ireland," page 3.

222

representatives were without an accredited leader. On
the death of Mr. Isaac Butt, the founder of the Home Rule
Party, Mr. Shaw acted as sessional Chairman, and was
looked upon generally as the authorised leader. It was,
however, apparent to those who understood the inner
workings of the national life, that Mr. Shaw's policy was
too timorous and hesitating to secure that enthusiastic
following which was necessary to success. Close observers
saw that Mr. Shaw's influence was rapidly becoming over-
topped by the greater power and courage of a member of
the Party who, though a landlord and a Protestant, was to
the finger-tips a patriot and a Statesman. Gradually this
was recognised, and it was further seen that his policy was
more in harmony with the desires of the population than
the rival plans of Mr. Shaw- Mr. Butt had felt the mastery
of this cooler and clearer mind, and had called a Confer-
ence to strengthen his own position as a leader in dealing
with this strong member of the Party. But Mr. Parnell,
the member in question, came out of the struggle with
flying colours. In 1877, the English Home Rule
Confederation had shown their appreciation of the
position by deposing Mr. Butt from the Presidency and
appointing Mr. Parnell to the position. Now, in
1880, in the City Hall in Dublin, Mr. Parnell was
appointed leader of the Party and Mr. Shaw vacated his
position as sessional chairman. When the elections were
over it was found that the Tory policy had been repudiated
by the nation, and Mr. Gladstone was once more Premier
of England.

Mr. Forster's Secretaryship.

Seeing the gravity of the situation in Ireland,
he, in conjunction with Mr, W, E. Forster, M.P.

223

for Bradford, introduced a Relief Act to deal with the
temporary needs of the people. Mr. Forster had been
appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland, with a seat in the
Cabinet, and those who knew his sympathy with Ireland,
and his great work in the cause of education, predicted
much benefit to the two countries as the result of his work.
It is surprising to note that many who now laud his
statesmanship then denounced and defeated his far-seeing
and beneficient plans. To stave off evictions, until Mr.
Gladstone's Land Bill could be passed, Mr. Forster
introduced what was practically Mr. Parnell's previous
measure for the suspension of evictions, viz., '* The
Compensation for Disturbance " Bill.

\ The Tories and Compensation.

But the Tories opposed this, and thwarted the
beneficent purpose of Mr. Forster. Foot to

foot their leaders fought him and his measures in the
House of Commons, and though the Government
succeeded in securing a majority in that house, yet the
permanent Tory majority in the gilded chamber of the peers,
shutting their ears to the cries of the evicted in Ireland
and to the deniands of the preponderating electorate that
had returned Mr. Gladstone to power, contemptuously
threw out Mr. Forster's bill. How much the Tories are
to blame for the subsequent failure of Mr. Forster's
Secretaryship, to settle the grievances of the Irish people,
and for the clouding of his last days, their own consciences
and judgments must tell them in their calmer hours ! The
country continued to be despoiled, and, sad to say,
depraved characters, instigated by the notorious and
diabolical James Carey, attempted to destroy the life of
the man, who in spite of the defects of his administration,

224

loved Ireland and the Irish people, and who from the day
when he climbed mountain and forded river fighting the
famine and saving the people, was ever anxious to do what
he could to rescue Ireland from its misery and poverty.
Let no tongue revile the dead. If Mr. Forster is to be
blamed for the error of attributing to Irish Statesmen the
guilt which belonged to a few murderous and deluded
men, at least let him be freed from the stigma which rests
upon the system of administering law in Ireland, and
which the Tories in the Houses of Commons and Lords
refused to alter.

Mr. Forstek. and Mr. Balfour Compared.

If Mr. Forster had lived a little longer, he would
have found that even in the estimation of the men
who opposed him, and had been imprisoned during
his term of office, that he occupied a position of respect
as compared with Mr. A. J. Balfour. One of the most
prominent of the leaders of the Irish nation, in my hearing,
said, * Though I fought against Forster and his adminis-
tration of the law, I could not think hardly of him. I
always felt that he had a warm heart.' Roused to anger,
his philippics in the House of Commons stung and
withered, but they were preferable to the cool insolence
and studied contempt of the defender of philosophic
doubt, who from the height of his fancied superiority
looks down indifferently upon the representatives of the
Irish people. Mr. Balfour's coldheartedness is apparent
to all. The Bill of Mr. Forster's which the Tories
rejected was only intended to remain in force for a year,
and it applied only to such districts as were scheduled
under the head of *' distressed " in the Relief Act. The
defects of the Land Act of 1870 were to be temporarily

225

remedied until a more detailed and permanent bill could
be prepared. In the ''distressed" districts the bill
provided that the tenants who could show the County
Courts that the non-payment of their rent was due to the
existing distress were to be allowed compensation for
improvements and disturbance, on condition that these
exceeded in value the amount of rent owing. It really
was to prevent the landlord from confiscating the tenant's
goodwill and improvements, when, in consequence of distress
in the district, he was unpunctual in paying his year's rent.
If this bill had been passed, evictions would have been
stopped in most places during the existence of the
distress, and the country would have been kept quiet until
the tranquilising policy of Mr. Gladstone could have found
expression in his Land Act. But the House of Lords
defied justice, humanity, and the expressed wishes of the
people's representatives by a vote of 282 to 51. The
Lords threw out a bill for lessening tenants' costs in cases
of eviction, although the Commons had passed the bill,
and then they further rejected a bill for assimilating in
Ireland and England the laws for the registration of
voters. The cry of the Tories for equal laws in the two
countries was shown to be but a deceptive cuckoo-cry by
the action of the most prominent and decorated orna-
ments of the Party.

Land Act of 1881.

I cannot deal with the details of the question from
that time to the present. Mr. Gladstone's Land Act was
passed in 1881, and was intended to further complete the
great work done in 1870. The landlords had had eleven
years of grace given to them, and instead of endeavouring
to establish harmonious and confidential relations between

226

themselves and their tenants they had used the time to
further their own interests. Now, Land Courts were
estabHshed and Commissioners were appointed to fix fair
rents, and so the principle of interfering with the landlord
to secure justice to the tenant was further developed.

The Healy Clause.

One of the most important sections of the Land Bill
of 1 88 1 is what is called the Healv Clause. By this clause
the benefits of the bill were to apply retrospectively. It
provides that "no rent shall be allowed or made payable in
any proceedings under this Act in respect of improvements
made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, and for
which, in the opinion of the court, the tenant or his
predecessors in title shall not have been paid or otherwise
corapensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title."

The feeling of landlords in relation to this is
expressed in the declaration of Lord Lifford, who
objected to it because he thought its "effects went back to
Adam." But the clause was passed. In the discussion,
Mr. Parnell suggested that this clause should be
strengthened by an additional resolution, but the Govern-
ment thought it was not necessary. Mr. Gladstone said,
on August 9th : — " I am obliged to decline the proposed
addition of the words of the hon. member for the City of
Cork (Mr. Parnell) on this ground. In the Act of 1870
we did in respect to the tenant recognise the principle
that he might be compensated by a reasonable lapse of

time in respect of improvements he had made

We do not recognize that principle in the present Act.
. . . It is much better that those who make the
improvements should have the whole benefits of the
improvements."

227

On August loth : — ** The doctrine accepted at the
time of the Land Act of 1870, and which he certainly
decHned to accept the night before, was the doctrine that
the enjoyment by the tenant for a certain time of his own
improvements might have reimbursed him for the cost of
these improvements, and by a natural process they passed
over to the landlord. . . . The tenant's improvements
were the tenant's own property, and he would not admit
the principle that the time during which he enjoyed those
was any reason for their passing away from him."

On August 15th: — 'Tt was nothing short of impossible
that the court should imagine or adjudge that to be com-
pensation by the landlord which had never cost the
landlord in any shape, in money or money's worth, a single
farthing. Consequently the Government could not accede
to the amendment.*

Mr. Healy complains very bitterly of the Land Com-
missions for making his clause of little effect. He
expected that the clause would save millions to the
tenants. The tenants themselves regarded this clause as
of great value, but the Court of Appeal ruled — in the
case of Adams z^. Dunseath — ist. That enjoyment of im-
provements made before the Land Act of 1870 was a
compensation for them, i.e., that they practically became
the landlord's by process of time ; 2nd. That the im-
provability of the soil belongs to the landlord ; and 3rd,
That the improvements to come within the protection of
the Act must be suitable to the holding, i.e., that if the
tenant built thereon a corn-mill or a mansion he might be
rack-rented for those unsuitable structures without mercy.

The late Lord Chancellor Law dissented from these
findings, and declared that they did not harmonize with

* Quoted by Mr. Healy, p. 134— A Word for Ireland.

228

the intentions of the Government, and were not the
correct interpretation of the law ; and as he had been the
Attorney-General in the House of Commons during the
progress of the bill, I take it that he knew the mind and
intention of Mr. Gladstone respecting it.

The Land Courts were speedily blocked by a large
number of applicants, and when in several cases the rents
were greatly reduced, the landlords in many instances
made arrangements with the tenants instead of coming
into Court. As a rule the reductions amount to at least
20 per cent, on the rental. The reductions out of Court
amounted in some instances to 23 per cent. ; and in Court
in the case of Lord Arran of over 30 per cent., Lord
Ashbrooke 36 per cent., Jones Burne nearly 33 per cent.
Some of the worst landlords dare not face the Courts, and
others made up for the reduction of rent by imposing
prices on the peat that the tenants had usually cut free of
cost from the bogs.

Landlord Mercies in Achill.

"Many of the wretched cottiers of Achill, who were too
poor to fee lawyers to conduct their cases before the Sub-
Commissioners, were forced to surrender their " fair
rents," and pay a higher amount, in consequence of a
threat by the landlord to appeal and subject them to
further law costs, which they could not pay. On the 20th
November, 1885, the special correspondent of ihe Freeman' s
Journal (Mr. Michael MacDonough), who visited the island
to report on the distress, stated that in some places the
natives, who use seaweed for manure, " brought huge
stones from the mountain tops down to the seashore, in
several cases many miles distant, and thence transported
them in boats a long way out to sea, where they were

229

deposited. In course of time the stones become covered
with seaweed, and the crop thus produced is collected
by the tenants every year. These stones are called
* carrigeens,' and on some of the properties of the island
a yearly rate is charged for their use, although it cannot
be denied — nor is it attempted to be denied — by the land-
lords that the tenants alone underwent the trouble and
expense of putting them in position."*

An extreme case, but one by no means a solitary one,
illustrating the way in which the Land Act frequently fails
to do justice, is that of a poor widow living near Kilkee*
on the West Coast of Co. Clare, the particulars of which
are as follows : —

" This woman, and her husband before her, had for 30
years paid a rent of about £11 for eleven acres of very
poor land. She took her case into the Land Court and
the rent was reduced to £$- Yet the landlord, in vengeance,
evicted her for £ig arrears of the old rack-rent, leaving
her at once both homeless and penniless.

So that, taking the judicial rent of £s as a sample, or
basis, of fair rent, the landlord had taken in 30 years 30
times £6, or say ;^i8o (less £ig arrears due) over and
above what the Court declared to be a just rent ; in other
words, the fee-simple had been paid for by the tenant
more than one and a half times (/'160 is over one and a
half times twenty years' purchase of ;^5), and yet the
landlord evicted the tenant without any compensation,
thus legally robbing her, under the Land Act, of ^160, or
counting interest, of more than ^200." f

Mr. Gladstone's bill was an honest attempt to meet a
huge grievance. The unprecedented fall of prices, the
exclusion of 120,000 leaseholders, however, prevented it

♦ T. M. Healy. t Pamphlet by Mr, E. Harvey.

230

from being that complete settlement that was aimed at.
'Tis not in mortals to command success, but Mr. Gladstone's
courage deserved it. He saw the great blot of the system
in vogue and tried to remove it, and this he did in a fear-
less and statesmanlike way. But the cost to the tenants
has often been very great, and it has been declared that up
to the present time the total cost of working the Act has
been greater than the entire sum granted in annual
reductions since it became law.

Sir James Cairo's Views.

Sir James Caird {The Times, 20th March, 1886) shows
the chief reason for the failure of the Act : —

** The land in Ireland is held by two distinct classes
of tenants — the small farmers who pay rent from £,\ to
£^0, and the comparatively large farmers who pay rent
from ^20 upwards. Of the first class there are 538,000
holdings, averaging ^6 each ; of the second class, 121,000
holdings, averaging £1^ each. The rent payable by the
first class is /^3, 572, 000, and by the second class
;^b,845,ooo. Five-sixths of the Irish tenants thus pay
about one-third of the total rental, and one-sixth pay
nearly two-thirds. ... If the present price of
agricultural produce continue, I should fear that from the
land held by the large body of poor farmers in Ireland any
economical rent has for the present disappeared."

Upon this The Times, after describing Sir James Caird
as a man "whose authority on agricultural questions is
universally recognized," declared : — " It is not too much
to say that the rental of the 538,000 holdings is practically
irrecoverable by anybody, whether landlord, English
Government, or Irish Government."

Whereupon the Pall Ma'l Gazette exclaimed : —
" Nothing that Mr. Parnell in his worst momenta ever
said approaches in gravity to this momentous declaration.
For the doctrine of no rent for holders under £zo is now
formally advanced on the authority of the leading English
economist and endorsed by the chief advocates of the
Irish landlords. Here is ' prarie value ' with a vengeance.
. . . The conclusions of the Land League are now
endorsed — as far as five-sixths of the Irish holdings go —
by Sir James Caird and The Times'"^

Irish Education.

After the Land Bill of 1870 had been passed, Mr.
Gladstone's Government devoted itself to the settlement
of vexed questions in England, and a series of beneficial
reforms were promptly inaugurated. But in 1873 Mr.
Gladstone essayed the herculean feat of attempting to
settle the question of University Education in Ireland.
In the Royal Speech it was announced that the measure
would have for its object "the advancement of learning"
in Ireland, and would " be framed with a careful regard to
the rights of conscience." The critical questions at issue
in the education of the people of Ireland are too large for
this small work, for the subject shows that the conflicts
between the various sectarians of Ireland were severe and
prolonged.

Schools in Ireland had been founded and endowed
for the sole purpose of educating children in the
Protestant faith, and of alienating the children of Roman
Catholics from the religion of their fathers. Erasmus
Smith's Schools, endowed by lands confiscated during the
Cromwellian Era, were of this class. Roman Catholics

* (Quoted by Mr, T. M, Healy.

232

were excluded; and of 105 schools in 1880, there were in
Connaught 2, in Munster 14, in Leinster 31, and in Ulster
58. Sixteen private schools, with a revenue of /"1700 a
year and owning upwards of 4000 acres of land, educated
less than 300 children. The schools of Primate Boulter
established in 1730 were afterwards secured by a royal
charter, and ultimately in 181 1 received a Parliamentary
grant of ^^40,000.

The proceeds of a tax on hawkers and pedlars is said
to have been given to this work, besides endowments and
the king's bounty, so that many of the schools had a
yearly income of over ;£"2ooo. These schools are declared
to have been erected in order to educate the children of
Catholics in the Protestant religion. When this purpose
failed, they were changed from day schools into boarding
schools; and Howard, the prison philanthropist, said to a
Committee of the House of Commons in 1785 that the
children were "sickly, pale, and miserable objects, and
were a disgrace to all Society, and that their reading had
been neglected for the purpose of making them work for
their masters." It was further reported that among these
children there is no form or shade of conceivable vice
that did not abound in these infamous proselytising
institutes ! The great fault of Irish education has ever
been the attempt to train the children in the interests of
rival religious sects. Even when Mr. Stanley — the late
Earl Derby — instituted in 1831 a reform of education, and
established a Board of National Education, the religious
sects could not tear themselves away from the old system
of proselytism. Religious instruction was allowed at fixed
hours, and under the sham of teaching common Christian
principles each Protestant and Catholic rivalled the other
in advocating simply their own distinctive tenets.

233

Between 1847 and 1867 the District Model Schools
were erected, but half of them were in Ulster, a fourth in
Leinster, while Munster had only five and Connaught two.
So unequal and unjust was the distribution. The Roman
Catholics lost confidence in the system. Indeed the more
the subject is considered, the more it must be seen to be
unfair to the Roman Catholics in offending |^"eir religious
ideas, and ultimately of making them the^,opponents of
undenominational secular education. The religious differ-
ences that had been fostered by centuries of religious
bigotry and injustice, and that had been intensified by the
efforts of English Governors to buttress a dominant
minority, interfered with the success of Sir Robert Peel's
scheme for international education by means of Queen's
Colleges. The Catholics, deeply religious, distrusted it,
while Sir R. H. Inglis, as the spokesman of the Protestant
and Tory combination called it a ** gigantic scheme of god-
less education." The "Maynooth" grant to Catholics
suggested by Lord Fitzwilliam in 1795, and inaugurated
by the erection of a Roman Catholic College under the
tutelage of the Marquis of Camden did not clear away the
difficulties. The Marquis stated that a wise foundation
had been laid for educating the Roman Catholic Clergy at
home, instead of on the Continent.

Mr. Gladstone's Aim.

It was made almost purely a clerical seminary contrary
to the original intention. This was unfortunate, as it shut
out many children of catholic gentlemen. After the Union
the grant in its favour was reduced one half. The sum,
however, was variable, and Peel endeavoured to secure for
it improved management and an adequate grant of
£zb,i^o a year. This grant was commuted in 1868 for a

234

sum of ;^372,33i. In 1873 Mr. Gladstone aimed at
consolidating the Universities and excluding subjects that
bore a religious complexion as far as possible. The new
University was to have no chairs " for theology, moral
philosophy, or modern history." The scheme was well
designed and elaborated, but it seemed at last to be
rejected by each party for whose benefit it was designed.
The choruii of approbation that greeted its introduction
was changed in storms of denunciation. The bill was
rejected. Since then the difficulties have still obstructed
the path of free sectarian education. In 1878^1,000,000
was granted for intermediate education, and in 1885 the
Educational endowments of Ireland were re-organised,
and an attempt made to carry out the spirit and intentions
of the founders of the various educational institutions.
But the work has been tedious and slow, and Englishmen
have not yet been able to undo the wrongs of the past, or
sweep away the suspicion that centuries of class education
have engendered. The legacy of moral wrong is still
unpaid, and in Ireland there exists to-day the remains of
a sad mistrust that free and secular education would
contribute either to godlessness and vice, or to the secret
dissemination of sectarian dogma. The nation has
become more educated, but the strides would doubtless be
all the greater if education were undenominational, and
nothing would give greater confidence to the English
electorate than the freeing of the Schools of Ireland from
all clerical control, either Catholic or Protestant. But in
this as in other national matters, the Irish people have a
right to decide for themselves. Experience will show
them what to do to secure for the children of their land
the same freedom and growth that are being realised in
the educational life of the boys and girls in England,

235

Of Mr. Gladstone's effort in 1873, Mr. J. McCarthy says
that it " was a gallant and well meant effort to reconcile
the conflicting claims." .... " The great minister
had failed. Like the hero of Schiller's ballad, the brave
swimmer had plunged once too often, to bring out a
prize, and he perished.''*

Before referring to Mr. Gladstone's latest bills for
dealing with Irish land and Irish self-government, a few
things must be noted in Irish history. In 1874 the return
of a Conservative majority was also attended by the return
of 51 Home Rulers. Modern Irish History took a new
departure. The Times newspaper in 1875 said of Ireland
that "at no period of her history did she appear more
tranquil, more free from serious crime, more prosperous
and contented. And yet the Peace Preservation Act^
which was a measure of Coercion passed to grapple with
Fenianism was renewed for five years.

The Land League.

The Irish Land League then came to birth under the
progenitorship of Mr. Michael Davitt. The nation had
sufiered a succession of bad harvests, and the potato
crops of 1877, 1^7^ ^^^ 1879, as previously pointed out
were of the most scanty character. The average produc-
tion of potatoes for the ten years ending 1878 was
60,752,918 cwts., but in 1879 it fell to only 22,273,520.
And evictions increased. Large bodies of police, paid out
of the rates drawn from those who objected to the work
these police were sent to do, carried out evictions and
starving tenants were cast out on the hard highway. Mr.
W. E. FORSTER declared that the country felt strongly the
injustices which were being perpetrated. When his bill

=** liistory of our pwn tiines,

^36

for compensation for disturbance was thrown out the
people of Ireland felt that something must be done by
themselves to save the lives of the poorest of the tenantry.
Boycotting, intimidation and repressive measures were
resorted to in many districts. Lord R. Churchill, the
son of the late viceroy, then in the days of Juvenile
effrontery and omniscience declared that the Irish question
was " all bosh."

Cost of Police Protection.

Seven thousand men were employed to keep the
peace in County Mayo. Their very presence was a stand-
ing menace and an incitement to secret rebellion. The
cost was tremendous. Turnips saved for Captain Boycott
cost the Government one shilling each. The Tories
refused reforms. Sir Stafford Northcote, who became
leader in the House of Commons at the elevation of Mr.
Disraeli to the peerage as Lord Beaconsfield, mid that the
three F's, viz. :'■ — fixity of tenure, fair rent, and free sale,
were impracticable. Tke Times praised Lord Salisbury
for his implacability to land-reform. The classes hurried
the Government on with coercion bills, but refused all
consent to ameliorative measures, except when the passing
of them was necessary to the existence of a Tory Govern-
ment. When Mr. Gladstone formulated the Land Bill of
1 88 1, the Peers tried in every conceivable way to oppose
and curtail the measure. They wriggled their amendments
into the bill, to have them again thrown out, until their
impotence to injure the measure became manifest ; like
Hercules of old, Mr. Gladstone was able to destroy his
sinuous assailants.

The session of 1882 witnessed once more the failure
of coercion. Notwithstanding the suppression of the

237

Land League, and the imprisonment of the Irish leaders,
coercion did not cowe the spirit of the Irish people, or
prevent them from loudly demanding further reforms. On
April 28th Mr. Gladstone announced the determination of
the Government to promote legislation about arrears.

Resignation of Mr. Forster.
Lord Spencer went to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant, and
Mr, Forster resigned. It was currently reported that he
was forced from the Cabinet chiefly through the influence
of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P. for Birmingham. The
Leeds Mercury and other papers, which sympathized with
Mr. Forster, spake out their indignation with no reticent
voice. Lord Frederick Cavendish, the firm friend of Mr.
Gladstone, accepted the post of danger, and with the olive
branch went over to Ireland as Chief Secretary, honestly
intending to secure the truest administration to that
country.

A Terrible Crime.

Then came the news of his terrible and deplorable
assassination, and the country for a time seemed
given over to a phrenzy of passion and vengeance. The
assassination interrupted a remedial work. The "invinci-
bles," led by James Carey, slew one of the noblest and
most honoured men of the times, and Ireland was again
plunged into darkness and sorrow. The leaders of the
Nationalists — Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and Davitt — issued
an address stating " that no act has ever been perpetrated
in our country during the exciting struggles for social and
political reforms of the past fifty years that has so stained
the name of hospitable Ireland as this cowardly and
unprovoked attack on a friendly stranger, and that until
the murderers of Lord F. Cavendish and Mr. Burke (the

238

Under-Secretary) are brought to justice, the stain will sully
our country's name."

Mr. Parnell, in his place in the House of Commons,
expressed on his own behalf and that of his party their
abhorrence of the crime, and their deepest sorrow in
consequence of it.

Severe laws were immediately passed, and it is said
that for the time Mr. Parnell despaired of his cause. The
letters of Lady F. Cavendish in the hour of her great
trouble, in which she deplored her husband's tragic death,
and the country's unreasoning cry of revenge, are models
of christian writings. When Lord Salisbury assumed
office in 1885 he determined not to renew the Prevention
of Crimes Act. This was one of the planks of his plat-
form. Without considering the question of its bearing
upon the Irish people, but consulting party exigencies and
retention of office, he determined not to court defeat in
the House of Commons, but to allow the Act to lapse.

The Alliance of Tories and Parnellites.
The Tory- Parnell ite alliance then became known. Mr.
T. P. O'Connor now says, '* throughout the whole Parlia-
ment of 1880 to 1885 the Tories and the Irish Party acted
in close combination, except when the Government
was proposing coercion. On coercion the Tories and the
Parnellites parted company, for when a Liberal Government
proposed coercion, it was filching a Tory policy, and
naturally found Tory support." Every victory of the Tory
opposition was won by aid of the Irish vote. The Irish
representatives took to themselves the work of a permanent
opposition to any Government that would not grant their
demand for self-government. Their help carried the
Tories to victory. Mr. T. P. O'Connor says :— " The
new Tory Cabinet honourably and promptly fulfilled their

239

engagements to the allies who had brought them into
office. Coercion was at once dropped." In addition to
this, the Government of Lord Salisbury defying all the
honourable traditions of Statesmen, was willing for the
Maamtrasna question to be re-opened, to the detriment
and condemnation, if necessary, of the late Lord
Lieutenant — Earl Spencer, for his conduct in carrying out
a policy of coercion, which the Tories had supported.
Even Mr. Goschen was moved to condemn this combin-
ation of the Tories and Parnellites — called the Maamtrasna
alliances. The criticisms of Lord Randolph Churchill
and others of the Tory Cabinet, in flouting the decisions
of Earl Spencer in his Irish Administrations, were
discreditable to them as men, and disgraceful as politicians
and administrators.

In 1880 The Times gave expression to the opinion of
the Tories by calling the proposals of the Land League
"confiscation, pure and undisguised." But in 1882 Mr.
W. H. Smith proposed a resolution on behalf of the Tory
Party demanding exactly the same settlement for the land
question as had been demanded by the Land League in
1880. The elections of 1885 are notable for the support
given by the Irish Party to the Tory Candidates. I have
repeatedly heard Irishmen declare that they never voted
for Tories but once, and would never do so again. But
the policy of the Tories was to secure office by the aid of
the Irish vote, and hopes were held out to the Irish
sufficiently strong to secure their loyal adhesion to the
Tory candidatures.

Tory Pledges to gain places in Parliament.

Mr. T. P. O'Connor says : — ''In a large number of
cases either the scruples of conscience or the determination

240

to avoid any form of inconvenient pledge, induced the
Tory candidate not to say one word on the Irish Question.
Indeed, an examination of the Tory addresses at the
election of 1885 will reveal the astonishing fact that in,
if not the majority, at least almost the majority of them,
there was no mention whatever of the burning question of
Home Rule. This was especially the case in constituencies
where, there being an Irish vote, the Tory candidate was
anxious, while leaving himself unpledged, at the same
time not to say anything which would estrange an Irish
elector. The Houghton-le-Spring division of Durham
contains a large number of Irish voters. The Irish voters
had resolved to support the Tory candidate, and Colonel
Nicholas Wood accordingly did not say a word about
Ireland. In the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool there
is a considerable Irish vote, and the Irish voters had
resolved to support the Tory candidate, and Mr. Royden
in return left them to draw their own conclusions as to his
Irish policy by not even mentioning the name of Ireland.
In other districts bolder spirits not only mentioned Ireland,
but came forward with a programme which might be
developed into an adoption of Home Rule. Candidate
after candidate pledged himself to the support of an
extension of local self-government, and an extension of
local self-government is a vague term which might dwindle
down to a mere extension of county government, or might
be enlarged to such a scheme of Home Rule as that pro-
posed by Mr. Gladstone. But this same class of candidates
were still more outspoken in their denunciation of
coercion ; and, indeed, it was largely on the cry of
coercion and no coercion that the Tories fought the
General Election of 1885. 'I would give,' said Sir
Frederick Milner, the Conservative candidate for York,

241

* to the Irish every privilege which is extended to the other
inhabitants of Great Britain. I am in favour of a
measure for the extension of local self-government, and
am of opinion that we ought to do our utmost to encourage
and develop Irish industries, and to promote the welfare
and happiness of her people.' * I cordially approve,' said
Major Dixon, the Conservative candidate for Middlesboro',

* of the conduct of the present Government in not renew-
ing the Crimes Act in Ireland, and hope to see other
coercive measures also abandoned ; and I shall be prepared
to support any well-devised scheme for giving to Ireland
a large amount of self-government.' ' At home, what do
we find ! ' exclaimed Mr. Hammond, the Conservative
candidate for Newcastle-on-Tyne, * Our sister kingdom —
Ireland — ruled with the iron rod of coercion.' 'To
Ireland,' said Mr. Gumming Macdonald, the Conservative
candidate for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, ' I
would continue to hold out, with the Conservative Party,
the olive-branch of peace, conscious that in times past
she has suffered many wrongs.'

More Truckling for the Irish Vote.

*' In Hyde, Manchester, the Irish electors were asked
to 'vote for Flattely; no Coercion;' similar placards were
posted over Leeds in the interest of Mr. Dawson, the
Tory candidate. 'I have declared myself,' said Mr.
Jennings, the Tory member for Stockport, when tasked in
Parliament with his attitude at the November election of
1885, *in favour of a Liberal measure of local self-govern-
ment for Ireland. I have expressed myself as being opposed
to Coercion Bills, and such Bills I have said I never would
vote for; and I never will.' The name of Mr. Jennings
has since appeared in the divisions on the Coercion Bill of

242

the present Government; but that does not alter his own
statement as to his attitude during the election of 1885.
In one of the Metropolitan constituencies Mr. Wilfrid
Blunt stood as an avowed and advanced Home Ruler, and
at the same time as a member of the Tory Party. The
relations between the two parties, the Irish Nationalists
and the Tories, were even more intimate in private than in
public. The Tory candidates paid all the expense of
printing all the documents of the National League in
Bolton, and the money appears in the official return of the
election expenses of the Tory members. At the Flint
Burghs I heard the Tory candidate speak to a meeting of
Irish Nationalists after I had concluded my own speech.
In North Kensington, Sir Roper Lethbridge followed his
return as Tory member by paying a visit to a branch of
the National League in his constituency and thanking
them for his return ; in Kennington, Mr. Gent Davis,
the Tory member, declared to one of his Irish electors
that if he were ever to vote for coercion the Irishmen
would be at liberty to break his windows."

There had, however, been more important evidences
of the prevalent opinion of the Tory party at this crisis.
The Earl of Carnarvon had communication with Mr.
Parnell, and at one time it seemed as though the Tories
were about to attempt Liberal work and " dish " their
opponents.

Mr. T. P. O'Connor says: — ''Meantime, everybody
in England acknowledged the important aid which the
Irish Party had given the Tory candidates. ' Fair Trade
may have deluded a few,' said Mr. Gladstone, commenting
on the borough elections while speaking in Flintshire on
behalf of Lord Richard Grosvenor, * as Free Trade has
blessed the many, but that has not been the main cause.

243

. . . The main cause is the Irish vote.' * They '
(meaning the Tories), he wrote to the Midlothian electors,
* know that but for the imperative orders, issued on their
behalf by Mr. Parnell and his friends, whom they were
never tired of denouncing as disloyal men, the Liberal
majority of forty-eight would at this moment have been
near a hundred.' ' Lancashire,' he said, in the Flintshire
speech, * has returned her voice. She has spoken, but if
you listen to her accents you will find that they are tinged
strongly with the Irish brogue.' * We have had,' said Mr.
Chamberlain, * a most unusual and extraordinary combina-
tion against us, and I am inclined to describe it as the
combination of the five P's, and I shall tell you what the
five Fs are in the order of their importance, beginning
with the least important. They are Priests, Publicans,
Parsons, Parnellites, and Protectionists.' * Whatever else,'
wrote the Birmingham Daily Post, 'may be the issue of
the elections, or however they may benefit by the Parnellite
vote. Great Britain has most unquestionably rejected the
Tory Party. But for the aid of the Irish allies, their
position on the present polls would have been as bad as it
was in 1880, if not worse.' * But for the Nationalist vote
in English and Scotch constituencies,' said the Manchester
Examiner, ' the Liberals would have gone back to Parlia-
ment with more than their old numbers.'

Lord Randolph Churchill's Candour.

" But the Irish vote had not succeeded in bringing
the Tories to a position in which they would be of any
service to Ireland. When the General Election was over,
the numbers were: Liberals, 333 ; Conservatives (including
2 Independents), 251; Nationalists, 86. The Liberals
were thus in a majority over the Conservatives of 82. If

244

the Tories got the Irish vote and were able to poll the full
strength of their own party, they would have had a
majority of but four over the Liberals ; and four is not a
working majority. Besides, it was more than doubtful if
they would have carried the whole of their own party with
them on a policy of Home Rule. All or nearly all their
supporters from Ireland belonged to that terrible Orange
faction which has obstinately opposed every concession to
the majority of the Irish nation. A certain number of the
same unholy gang have been returned for English con-
stituencies. There can be little doubt under these circum-
stances that the proposal of Home Rule by the Tory
Ministers would have led to a Tory cave which would have
placed the Government in a hopeless minority, and have
given them the discredit of having proposed Home Rule
without the merit of having carried it. The Tory and the
Irish leaders had little difficuty inl recognising that the
stroke of 1885 had not succeeded. A Tory statesman who
had acted throughout in a frank and manly spirit gave the
word to a prominent Irish member that there was nothing
more to be expected from the Tory leaders, and that the
Irish Nationalists had better fix their hopes elsewhere.
The situation was more frankly put to the same member
by Lord Randolph Churchill. ' I have done my best for
you,' he said, ' and failed ; and now, of course, I'll do my best
against you.' So ended the Tory-Parnell combination."

Conflict of Churches.

For many years Catholicism and the influence of the
Pope of Rome was a terrible bogie that prevented the
Protestants from uniting with the Catholics in political
work. They persistently refused to join in promoting
the cause of self-government in any form in Ireland,

And yet both Churches felt that something should be
done to cheapen and make easier the passing of measures
that were needed for the internal peace and prosperity
of the country. There was, however, so little of the
confidence which is ever necessary to a reliable union
between the two parties, that no satisfactory amalgamation
could be secured.

Protestantism Reassured.

When John Martin was nominated as micmber for
Longford, in spite of the opposition of the priests, many
leading Protestants began to see that the political power
of the priests was not so great as had been supposed and
feared, and that just as Catholic patriots at the time of the
Spanish Armada refused to obey the behests of Rome
because they interfered with patriotic devotion to their
country, so the patriots of Ireland were not disposed to
sink their political convictions and aims at the call of
ecclesiastical functionaries. Further, the Protestants were
in large numbers incensed by the Disestablishment of the
Irish Church, and they expressed themselves very strongly
in favour of freeing their country from the Legislature
which had inflicted upon them a supposed wrong. In the
Act of Union the Established Church was declared to be
an essential and fundamental part of the Union. In 1869,
when Disestablishment was secured, the Act of Union was
interfered with.

The Orange Lodges and Dissolution of

THE Union.

In consequence of this, many of the Oranges Lodges
recorded their protest, and declared that if Her Majesty
sanctioned it she would forswear her Coronation Oath.

246

When it was passed, one of the members of the Grand
Orange Lodge moved that now the Orangemen be not
compelled to maintain the Legislative Union.

A special meeting of the Grand Lodge was afterwards
summoned to consider the question, and by twenty-two
votes to eighteen it was resolved : —

** That all statements and provisions in the objects,
rules, and formularies of the Orange Institution,
which impoS^ any obligations upon its members
to maintain the Legislative Union between Great
Britain and Ireland, be expunged therefrom."

But as the constitution of the Orange Lodges
declared that no alteration could be made without a two-
thirds majority the resolution was declared by Lord
Innerskill, the Imperial Grand Master, to be defeated.
But the fact remains that in 1869 the Grand Lodge, by an
actual majority of those present, voted for expunging from
its constitution the obligation to sustain the Legislative
Union.

The Deputy Grand Chaplain advocated not simply a
dissolution of the Union, but absolute separation. He
said : — " When the Protestant chain that unites Protestant
England and Protestant Ireland is severed, the two
countries are separated for ever ! " And he further
declared that " if such a time should come as 1848, and if
England looked to the Protestants for hearty sympathy
with the Union, they would fold their arms ; they would
say * The Union was dissolved when that B,ill wa^ signed
by the Sovereign.' " And this from a loyal Orangeman.
But this statement is only in harmony with much of their
history. Grattan, himself a Protestant, described them as
** ferocious banditti committing atrocities in the name of
God."

247

English Statesmen and the Loyalty of
Orangemen.

The Orange Lodges were founded in 1795 for the
purpose of maintaining class injustice and religious
despotism, and they have striven to carry out the work for
which they were formed. From 1835 to 1839, Lords
Normanby and Morpeth and Mr. Thomas Drummond
endeavoured to restrain and suppress this secret organiza-
tion. In 1836 Mr. Joseph Hume brought the question of
their disloyalty before the House of Commons and Lord
John Russell endorsed his statements. King William IV.
was petitioned " to take means for the effectual dis-
couragement of Orange Lodges, and generally of all
political societies excluding persons of different faith,
using signs and symbols, and acting by associated
branches." The King's brother, who was Grand Master
of the Orangemen — the Duke of Cumberland — recom-
mended the societies to dissolve. But though his advice
was acted upon, so disloyal and reprehensible were 1»he
Orangemen regarded that the Executive treated them as
incapable of holding any office of public trust, and
promptly cashiered them, great and small, from the sub-
constable to the Lord Lieutenant of a County.''^ It was
proclaimed in public that they were agitating to alter the
succession, and to place their bigoted head, the Duke of
Cumberland, upon the throne. They were, however,
foiled, and more than "fifty years of a good Queen's
reign" have been gained by the defeat of the Orange
Party. England lost Hanover to the English Crown by
the Salic Law, which forbad a woman to reign there, and
the Duke of Cumberland was made King of Hanover.
Many English people thought that it was a cheap price to

*Deane's History of Ireland.

14^

pay for the removal of this narrowminded and despotic
prince. In 1832 Lord Stanley said of the Orangemen,
that they *' persecuted more than others in keeping up
feelings of religious animosity," and that of their loyalty
as the *' bigoted partisans of an expiring faction" he
entertained great doubt. Lord Palmerston asked : —
** Is it an organization which belongs to the age in which
we live ? Is it not rather one that is suited to the middle
ages — to those periods of society when anarchy prevailed."

In 1870, however, leading Orangemen began to turn
their attention to the question of self-government for
their country. The various sections of politicians drew
nearer together, and in 1870 a meeting took place at the
Bilton Hotel in Dublin, and was attended not only by
Mr. Patrick Egan, but also by the late Colonel King
Harman, M.P. A Committee was formed to draw up
resolutions. The complete list, recorded by Mr. A. M.
Sullivan in his " New Ireland," includes the names of
many prominent Orangemen.

How THE Home Rule Movement commenced.

It was then that Mr. Isaac Butt, an old antagonist of
Daniel O'Connell's — an Irish Protestant — moved his famous
resolution in favour of Home Rule, and it was carried
unanimously. The Home Rule movement was therefore
brought to birth at a Conference of Protestants and
Catholics, and the Committee that drew up the resolution
in favour of Home Rule was composed of 35 Orangemen
and Protestants, and only 26 Catholics. Let those who
say that the movement is a Catholic movement, and
intended to secure the greater predominancy of the
Papacy, ponder this fact. Mr. Butt was for some time the
leader of these men, but it seemed as though his method

44^

of procedure did not secure full approval. Perhaps this
was chiefly because his first object was to obtain first a
further reform of the Land Laws, and Home Rule was,
notwithstanding that he was elected leader of the party
chiefly on this question, made subordinate to the land
question, Mr. Parnell, however, saw that there was little
hope of settling the difl'erences existing, and of securing
that reverence for law that is necessary to national peace,
until there was a central body in Ireland freely elected in
which the people had confidence, and the establishment
of which was a recognition of the national right and
aspiration to legislate for its internal welfare.

Lord Beaconsfield on a Nation's Strength.

Lord Beaconsfield's famous manifesto said : *'The
strength of this nation depends on the unity of feeling
which should pervade the United Kingdom and its wide-
spread dependencies." But where can there be unity of
feeling when there is an enforced bondage, and a
compulsory legislative centralisation which is not in
harmony with the desires and interests of one part of the
Empire, and how can unity of feeling be maintained and
continued when national leaders are sneered at by Premiers
and Members of the dominant Cabinet, and when they
are told that the questions which they consider important
are ** all bosh."

Mr. Gladstone to the fore.

Mr. Gladstone's mind, ever changing in the direction
of greater light and freedom, and facing the rising Sun
of the Democracy, saw that the only hope of contenting
Ireland was to give her self-government, so he set himself
to the work of drawing up an adequate scheme, and also

250

of associating with it a further reform of the land
laws, that both might be presented simultaneously to
Parliament.

Matthew Arnold and Irish Questions.
The late Mr. Matthew Arnold had foreseen the
need of other reforms than those connected with the land.
In 1882 he said, speaking of the land question : " The land
question is the question of the moment. Liberals are
fond of saying that Mr. Gladstone's concessions will
remove Irish discontent. Even the Pall Mall Gazette, the
most serious and clear minded of the exponents of
Liberal ideas, talks sometimes as if a good Land Bill would
settle everything. It will not, and it is deceiving ourselves
to hope that it will. The thing is to bring Ireland to
acquiesce cordially in the English connection. This can
be brought about only by doing perfect justice to Ireland,
not in one particular matter only, but in all the matters
where she has suffered." Miss O'Brien quotes an
excellent saying of Fox's : ' We ought not to legislate
for a nation in whose feelings and affections, wants, and
interests, opinions and prejudices we have no sympathy.'
It is most true, and it is of general application."*

Slain by the Landlords' Representatives.
Many efforts were made to amend the Land Acts, and
improve the condition of the tenantry from 1870 to 1880,
but the efforts proved futile and abortive. The majority
of landlords in Parliament were too powerful for the Irish
representatives to overcome. The following list of dead
bills — slain by the Parliament of Westminster in nine
years — is given by Mr. T. M. Healy — page 113 of '*A
Word for Ireland " : —

* "Arnold's Essays."

251

Date. Bill.

1871 . . Landed Property Act, 1847

Amendment

1872 . . Ulster Tenant Right

1873 . . Ulster Tenant Right
1873 . . Land Act, 1870, Amend. . .

1873 .. Land Act, 1870, Amend-

ment No. 2. .

1874 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt.,
1874 . . Land Act, 1870, Amend-
ment No. 2. .

1874 . . Ulster Tenant Right

1874 . . Irish Land Act Extension,

1875 . . Landed Proprietors'

1875 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt.,

1876 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt.,

1876 .. Tenant Right on Expira-
tion of Leases

1876 .. Land Tenure, Ireland

1877 . . Land Tenure, Ireland

1877 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt.,

1878 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt.,
1878 .. Tenant Right ..
1878 . . Tenant Right, Ulster
1878 . . Tenants' Improvements . .

1878 .. Tenants' Protection

1879 .. Ulster Tenant Right
1879 .. Ulster Tenant Right, No. 2,
1879 . . Landlord and Tenant
1879 .. Land Act, 1870, Amndmt.,

1879 . . Land Act, 1870, Amend-

ment No. 2 . .

1880 ..fLand Act, 1870, Amndmt.,
1880 . . t Ulster Tenant Right
1880 . . + Fixity of Tenure
1880 ..JLand Act, 1870, Amndmt.,
1880 . . :[ Compensation for Disturb-

Introduced by

Sergt. Sherlock .
Mr. Butt
Mr. Butt
Mr. Butt

Mr. Heron
Mr. Butt

Sir J. Grey

Mr. Butt

The O'Donoghue

Mr. Smyth

Mr. Crawford . ,

Mr. Mulholland . ,
Mr. Butt
Mr. Butt
Mr. Crawford
Mr. Herbert
Lord A. Hill
Mr. Macartney . ,
Mr. Martin
Mr. Moore
Mr. Macartney . ,
Lord A. Hill
Mr. Herbert
Mr. Taylor

Mr. Downing

Mr. Taylor

Mr. Macartney . ,

Mr. Litton

Mr. O'C. Power..

Fate

Withdrawn
Dropped
Dropped
Dropped

Dropped
Dropped

Dropped
Dropped
Dropped
Dropped
Rejected
Withdrawn

Dropped
Rejected
Rejected
Withdrawn
Dropped
Rjctd. Lords
Withdrawn
Rejected
Dropped
Rejected
Withdrawn
Dropped
Dropped

Rejected
Dropped
Dropped
Rejected
Dropped

Mr. W. E. Forster, Rjctd. Lords

+ First Session.

I Second Session.

Mr. Gladstone's Last Land Bill.

A discussion of Mr. Gladstone's last Land Bill, intro-
duced in 1886, cannot now be entered upon in these pages,
but an analysis of the Bill will be found on the following
pages. The bill is dead. The landlords would not have it,
though it was intended to give them an opportunity of reliev-
ing themselves of their land in cases where they preferred
to invest their money in other ways. Mr. Gladstone's
financial reputation was staked on the assurance that the
landlords who desired to be relieved of their estates could
be paid out without any permanent loss of cash or credit
to the British ratepayer. He knew that with the security
offered for the regular enforcement of judicially revised
rents, no other investment in accredited Government
funds could be found to bring in so high a return, and
that therefore those who possessed large estates would be
chary in throwing away an opportunity of retaining the
higher rate of interest in the shape of rent. My own
conviction is that it was drawn up with too liberal a hand
in the interests of the landlords, and I do not think that
ever again will Mr. Gladstone or the Liberal leaders offer
them such advantageous terms. I think also the country
should be careful that by no species of jobbery shall the
Tories deal with the landlords at the expense of either
the English or Irish ratepayers.

Analysis of Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill.

Mr. Sydney Buxton's Analysis of the Bill is very
concise and expressive : —

The object of the Bill is to give to all Irish landlords the
option of selling their rented agricultural lands on certain terms.
The tenants have no power to force the sale ; or to prevent it if the
landlord elects to sell, and is willing to accept the price fixed by the

253

Land Court. Only "immediate landlords" have the power of
option ; encumbrances cannot, by foreclosing, obtain any right of
sale under the Bill.

The normal price is to be, under ordinary circumstances, " on
a fairly well-conditioned estate," twenty years' purchase of the net
rental of the estate — equal to about sixteen years' purchase of the
nominal rental. If, however, the land be especially good, or the
estate in an exceptionally good condition, the number of years'
purchase can be increased by the Land Commission to twenty-two.
On the other hand, where, in the opinion of the Commission, the
land is not worth twenty years' purchase, they can fix a lower
price ; or, if the land be so valueless as to make it inequitable for
the State Authority to purchase, they can refuse the offer altogether.
The 7iet rental of the estate is to be fixed by the Land Commis-
sion, who, in order to find it, are to deduct from the gross rental —
chief rent, tithe rent-charge, the average percentage (over the last
ten years) of outgoings for bad debts, management, repairs, etc., and
for rates and taxes paid by the landlord. In fixing the price, the
Commission may take into account any circumstances or surround-
ings they judge right.

The gross rental of an estate is the gross rent of all the tenanted
holdings on the estate, payable in the year ending November, 1885.
The gross rent of a holding is the judicial rent, or, if none be fixed,
then a fair rent is to be fixed by the Land Commission.

Arrears of rent becoming due between November, 1885, and
the date of purchase (and which the landlord has endeavoured to
obtain) are to be added to the price.

In the case of holdings at or under £^ annual value, if the
tenant does not desire to become the freeholder, the State Authority
shall become the owner, the tenant remaining liable for rent
as before.

It is provided, moreover, that in certain " congested districts "
— to be scheduled afterwards — if the State Authority buys the land,
it shall retain the ownership and not vest it in the occupiers.

The whole of the rented estate, including town parks, houses,
and villages, if part of the agricultural estate, but excluding the
mansion, demesne land, or home farm, must go together. If, how-
ever, the landlord desires, and the State Authority agrees, it can

254

buy the mansion, demesne land, and home farm. No estate, which
is within the limits of a town, or is not in the main agricultural and
pastoral, comes under the Act. Grazing lands of a value of over
/50 a year may be excluded by the landlord from the sale, or the
purchase can be refused by the State Authority.

The Land Commissioners are to be appointed by name in the
Act. Any vacancy is to be filled up by "Her Majesty," and the
Commissioners hold office " during her pleasure."

"When the price is fixed, the landlord, and the legal encum-
brancers— whose position will not be affected in any way by the
Act — will receive the money, and the tenant will at once become
the freeholder of his holding, subject to the payment of a terminable
annuity for forty-nine years, equal to 4 per cent, per annum on the
capitalized value, at twenty years' purchase, of the old rent.

This annuity, and the rent in the case of small holdings where
the occupier remains as tenant, is to be collected by the department
of the Irish Government called the State Authority ; and the surplus
(equivalent to 4 per cent, per annum on the difference between tha
capitalized value of the old rent and that of the redemption money)
will be applied, after payment of the interest and repayment on the
capital advanced by the British Treasury, to the purposes of the
Irish Govenment.

The State Authority will be enabled to enforce the payment of
its annuities in such manner as is afterwards provided by an Act of
the Irish Parliament, and until that provision is made, the present
laws relating to the enforcement of payment of rent, etc., in Ireland
will remain in force.

During the time that the holding is subject to the annuity, the
occupier may neither subdivide nor let without the consent of the
State Authority. If he does, or in case of bankruptcy, the holding
can be sold.

The State Authority is to pay the British Treasury an annual
amount equal to 4 per cent, on the capital sum advanced by the
latter and received by the landlord.*

* Thus, if the whole £50,000,000 be advanced, the State Authority will rec«ive
£2,500,000 a year, subject to cost of collection, etc., and have to pay the British
Treasury only £2,000,000. It will thus, if thought necessary or expedient, be able
to grant further remission to the occupier.

255

The total liability under the Bill is limited to /50, 000,000, as
follows : —

;,fio,ooo,ooo in the year ending March, 1887-8.
;^ 20,000,000 ,, ,, ,, 1888-9.

/20, 000, 000 ,, ,, ,, 1889-90.

The applications from the landlords will be considered in
priority of time.

No application can be made after March, 1890.

The money advanced by the British Treasury is to be raised
by the issue to the landlords of 3 per cent, stock at par. The stock
is to be redeemed by the repayment of a terminable annuity for
forty-nine years by the State Authority.

In order to obtain security for the loan, the British Govern-
ment appoint a Receiver-General, through whose hands the whole
of the Irish revenues are to pass, together with the proceeds of Irish
Customs and Excise; but he will have absolutely nothing to do with
the levying of the revenue. After deducting from these receipts the
amount due from the State Authority for interest and repayment of
capital advanced, and after deducting also the Irish contributions
to the Imperial charges, the balance of the receipts will be handed
over to the Irish Exchequer.

Assuming that the whole loan is called up, the Irish balance-
sheet will then stand as follow : —

Expenditure.

For Imperial purposes 3,602,000

Constabulary, etc. .. 1,000,000

Collections of Customs

and Excise . . . . 247,000

Annuity on loan ad-
vanced for purchase 2,000,000

Irish Civil charges .. 2510,000

Collection of revenue,etc. 587,000

Collection of rent-charge

and expenses, say. . 100,000

Surplus.. ., .. 804,000

/lo, 850, 000

Revenue.

Customs and Excise.. 6,180,000
Stamps.. .. .. 600,000

Income Tax . . . . 550,000

Other sources revenue 1,020,000
Rent-charge . . . . 2,500,000

;^io, 850,000

In addition, the Surplus will be increased by the economies
made in the Civil Service, Constabulary, etc.

2s6
Influence of an Extended Franchise.

No event has had a wider and healthier influence on
the Irish question than the extension of the Franchise to
Irish householders. The Tories, adopting their traditional
policy, opposed the enfranchisement of the Irish Cottiers,
just as they refused previously to give a vote to the
labourers of the Agricultural counties. Mr. Chaplin,
aided by the full blown Tories of the hunting shires, did
his utmost to limit Mr. Gladstone's measure to Great
Britain, and to exclude Ireland from the benefits of the
Act. Mr. Goschen announced his intention to vote
against the measure unless the number of representatives
from Ireland was reduced. The meeting of the National
Federation, held in Leeds in 1884, decided the question
so far as the bulk of the Liberal Party was concerned.
The Liberals, with the exception of a few old-fashioned
Whigs, went solidly for enfranchisement for the three
Countries ; and even the Marquis of Hartington felt
compelled, in spite of opposite declarations made twelve
months previously, to yield to the pressure of public
opinion, and to the determined will of Mr. Gladstone and
the Liberal Party. The result lifted the Irish cause to a
higher level than it had ever previously reached. The
spontaneous enthusiasm of the people for nationality secured
a return of 86 members pledged to support Mr. Parnell in
his endeavours to secure a recognition of Irish nationality
in the form of self-government. It was the test question
at every election, and Ireland spoke with a clear and
distinct voice.

The Voice of Ulster.

Even Ulster — that special preserve of the Unionist
Party — sent a majority of its members to emphasize

^57

the demand for Home Rule. Then came the logical
result of the extension of the Franchise. To give a
people political power and then to refuse to listen to
them was felt by the Liberal Party to be but a burlesquing
of popular representation. Mr. Stanhope, M.P., speaking
for his party, announced his intention of refusing to listen
to the cry of the people of Ireland, but Mr. Gladstone
saw that such a course would be opposed to the traditions
and practices of the country, as well as to the genius of
representative government, and he clearly perceived that
the old temporising policy of delay ought to be exchanged
for one of confidence and a willingness to accept and to
act upon facts which were proven.

Representative Government counteracted by
AN Arbitrary Executive.

Mr. Fox in 1779 speaking of the Government of
Ireland said : — " The advantages, which the form of free
Government seemed to promise, have been counteracted
by the influence of the Executive Government and of the
British Cabinet." This is the charge that may fairly be
brought against Irish Government to-day. The forces of
freedom demanding self-government are met by the serried
phalanx of Tory Squires, ranged on the side of restriction
and coercion. Experience has shown the truth of Byron's
words, that

" Freedom's battle once begun,

Bequeathed by bleeding sire to son,

Though baffled oft, is ever won ; "

and yet the clearly expressed will of Irish constituencies
is arbitrarily opposed by those who have themselves
accepted election to give effect to the wishes of their
constituents. Fierce aad furious fanaticism has been
listened to, while the agonized cries of a suffering people

458

asking for redress, and requesting to be trusted with the
working of their own institutions of government, have
been disregarded. Dives has been pampered and petted,
the covetous Ahab has been gratified, and in spite of
the denunciations of Holy Writ, those who have removed
their neighbour's landmarks have been regarded as
virtuous characters; while the Lazaruses, the Naboths, and
the despoiled, who see in the restoration of ancient rights
their only hope for the future are treated by the Tory
Government as iniquitious or deluded men, who must be
punished or restrained. But of what use is the Franchise,
and the Ballot, and the forces of the military and police
to secure election without intimidation or rioting, unless
the voice of the electiors be listened to ? Better deprive
Ireland of representative institutions, than mock her
freedom with the travesty of trust and power. To deck
her in the garb of liberty, and to place a gag in her
mouth, and shackles on her hands, are to commit a further
crime against her. It is to crown her with thorns, and
not with the coronet of power, and to mock her with
apparent and not real sovereignity. Her purple robe will
be but the badge of her shame, and the sceptre of her
authority will be but a pliable reed placed in manacled
hands.

Forcing a Man to become a Volunteer.

I have heard a story of a man who was passing the
end of a street where an altercation was going on. He
enquired, of a woman in the crowd, what was the cause of
the disturbance, and she replied "O! they are only forcing
a man to become a volunteer ! " But force destroyed his
voluntary action and made him a mere machine. So to
nullify the eifect of the Franchise, by overpowering the

259

representatives of Ireland, and by refusing to carry out the
wishes of the Irish constituencies does away with the
worth of popular and free election. The democracies
which are the strongest and most contented, are those
which have been trusted with the power of determining
their own government, and they are sustaining their own
laws and the administration of them with a loyalty born
of confidence and a sense of responsibility.

The Home Rule Measure.

It was this deference to the wishes of the Irish nation,
expressed constitutionally at the polls, which induced Mr.
Gladstone in 1886 to bring in his famous measure of Home
Rule, amid the grateful cheers of the Irish nation, and
the plaudits and encouragement of all free countries,
both in the Old World and the New. The legislative
Union of force and fraud, inspired by short-sightedness
and selfishness, had failed. Under it, Ireland had
declined, and Mr. Gladstone saw that there was but one
way to restore confidence, peace and prosperity to
Ireland, and that was to unite the peoples, and separate
the legislatures, and to bind Ireland to England, not by
martial law and coercion, but by mutual trust and good-
will. His famous measures cut the Gordian knot of the
difficulty and they show the genius and greatness of his
mind and the nobility and courage of his heart. In the
Home Rule Bill he safeguarded the interests of the Imperial
Parliament, and carefully defined the measures that should
not be touched by the statutory Parliament in Dublin.

Digest of the Bill.

Mr. Sydney Buxton has prepared a very able and
lucid digest of the bill, as follows : —

26o

The Bill provides for the constitution of an Irish Parliament
sitting in Dublin, with the Queen as its head.

The Parliament — which is to be quinquennial — is to consist of
309 members, divided into two " orders," 103 members in the " first
order," and 206 in the " second order."

The " first order" is to consist of such or all of the 28 Irish
representative peers as choose to serve ; the remaining members to
be "elective." At the end of 30 years the rights of peerage members
will lapse, and the whole of the " first order " will be elective.

The elective members will sit for ten years ; every five years
one-half of their number will retire, but are eligible for re-election.
They do not vacate their seats on a dissolution.

They will be elected by constituencies subsequently to be
formed. The elective member himself must possess a property
qualification equivalent to an income of /200 a year. The franchise
is a restricted one, the elector having to possess or occupy land of a
net annual value of £z^.

The " second order " is to be elected on the existing franchise,
and by the existing constituencies, the representation of each being
doubled. For the first Parliament, the Irish members now sitting
in the House of Commons will, except such as may resign, con-
stitute one-half the members of the "second order" of the new
House.

The two orders shall sit and deliberate together, and, under
ordinary circumstances, shall vote together, the majority deciding.

If, however, on any question (other than a Bill) relating to
legislation, or to the regulations and rules of the House, the
majority of either order demand a separate vote, a separate vote
of each order shall be taken. If the decision of the two orders be
different, the matter shall be decided in the negative.

The Lord-Lieutenant has power given him to arrange for the
procedure at the first sitting, the election of Speaker, and other
minor matters for carrying the Act into effect.

If a Bill, or any part of a Bill, is lost by the disagreement of
the two orders voting separately, the matter in dispute shall be con-
sidered as vetoed, or lost, for a period of three years, or until the

26l

next dissolution of the Legislative Body, if longer than three years.
After that time, if the question be again raised, and the Bill or
provision be adopted by the second order and negatived by the first,
it shall be submitted to the Legislative Body as a whole, both
orders shall vote together, and the question shall be decided by the
simple majority. The Bill then, if within the statutory power of
the Parliament, and unless vetoed by the Crown, passes into law.

The Lord-Lieutenant — who, as Lord-Lieutenant, will not be the
representative of any party, and will not quit office with the out-
going English Government, and who in future need not necessarily
be a Protestant — is appointed by the Crown, and will represent the
Crown in Ireland. Neither his ofiice nor his functions can be
altered by the Irish Parliament.

The responsible Executive in Ireland will be constituted in the
same manner as that in England. The leader of the majority will
be called upon by the Lord-Lieutenant, as representing the Queen,
to form a Government responsible to the Irish Parliament. It will
stand and fall by votes of that Parliament.

The Queen, just as in the case of the Imperial Parliament,
retains the right — to be exercised through the Lord-Lieutenant— of
giving or withholding her assent to Bills, and can dissolve or
summon Parliament when she pleases ; she will probably, as in
England, exercise the latter function, and as a rule the former, on
the advice of the responsible Irish Executive.

All constitutional questions which may arise, as to whether the
Irish Parliament has exceeded its powers, will be referred to, and
decided by, the Judical Committee of the Privy Council ; their
decision will be final, and the Lord-Lieutenant will veto any Bill
judged by them to contain provisions in excess of the powers of
the Irish Legislature, and such a Bill will be void.

The prerogatives of the Crown are untouched. The following
matters remain intact in the hands of the Imperial Parliament:
The dignity of, and succession to, the Crown ; the making of peace
or war ; all foreign and colonial relations ; the questions of inter-
national law, or violation of treaties ; naturalization ; matters
relating to trade, navigation, and quarantine, beacons, lighthouses,
etc. ; foreign postal and telegraph service ; coinage, weights and

262

measures ; copyrights and patents ; questions of treason, alienage ;
the creation of titles of honour. The Imperial Parliament is,
moreover, to keep in its own hands the army, navy, militia, volun-
teers, or other military or naval forces ; is responsible for the
defence of the realm ; and may erect all needful buildings or
defences for military and naval purposes.

In addition, the Irish Parliament is not permitted to make laws
establishing or endowing any religion, or prohibiting in any way
religious freedom, by imposing a disability or conferring any
privilege on account of religious belief. Nor may they prejudically
affect the right of any child to avail itself of the " conscience
clause" at any school it may attend; nor of the private right of
establishing and maintaining any particular form of denominational
education.

It cannot, without the leave of the Privy Council of England,
or the assent of the Corporation itself, in any way impair the
rights, property, or privileges of any body created and existing
under Royal Charter or Act of Parliament.

For a time, at all events, the Customs and Excise duties are to
be levied by officers appointed, as now, by the British Treasury.

With these exceptions, all other matters, legislative and
administrative, are left absolutely in the power, and to the
discretion, of the Irish Parliament and its executive government.

It will be responsible for law and order, though the Imperial
Parliament, by retaining the military forces, holds the ultimate
power. It can raise and pay a police force — as in England, under
local control.

The responsible Government will have the appointment of the
Judges (to be life appointments, as in England), and of all the other
officials throughout the kingdom. The Parliament can make or
vary courts of law, legal power, or authorities, etc.

On the recommendation of the responsible Government, the
Parliament can levy such internal taxes as they please (with the
exception of Customs and Excise), and can apply the proceeds to
such purposes as they think fit. They can raise loans, and under-
take public works of every sort. They can manage their own post-
offices, telegraphs, and post-office savings banks,

263

They can create such local bodies as they choose. They can
regulate education : in a word, they will have the power of
legislating on all local Irish matters.

After the first election, they can alter any matter affecting the
constitution or election of the "second order;" the franchise, the
constituencies, the mode of election, the system of registration, the
laws relating to corrupt and illegal practices, the privileges and
immunities of the legislative body and of its members, etc.

To prevent any breach of continuity, existing laws will remain
in force until altered or repealed by the New Parliament.

All existing rights of civil servants and other officials at present
in the employ of the Irish Government are carefully guarded.
In order to preserve the continuity of Civil Government, they will
continue to hold office at the same salary they now receive, and to
perform the same or analogous duties, unless, from incompatibility
of temper, or from motives of economy, the Irish Government
desire their retirement, when they will receive their pension. In
any case if, at the end of two years, they wish to retire, they can
do so, and will be then entitled to a pension as though their office
had been abolished.

The judges, and certain permanent officials, can only be
retired, or allowed to retire, by " the Crown," and they will then
receive their pension as though they had served the full time.

The existing rights of the constabulary and police to pay
pension, etc., are preserved.

All these pensions become a charge on the Irish Treasury, but
are further guaranteed by the English Treasury.

It is not intended that the Irish representative Peers should
any longer sit in the House of Lords, nor the Irish members in the
House of Commons, but that Ireland (with the assent of her
representatives) should be practically unrepresented at West-
minster.

The Act constituting the Irish Parliament cannot be altered in
any way, except by an Act passed by an Imperial Parliament, and
assented to by an Irish Parliament ; or by an Act of the Imperial
Parliament, passed after there have been summoned back to it, for

264

that especial purpose, 28 Irish representative Peers, and 103
" second order " members.

The Financial arrangements are as follow :

The imposition and collection of Custom duties and of Excise
duties, so far as these are immediately connected with Custom
duties, will remain in the hands of the British Treasury. All other
taxes will be imposed and collected under the authority of the
Irish Parliament. The proceeds of these latter taxes will be paid
into the Irish Treasury ; the proceeds of the Customs and Excise
to be a special account of the British Treasury.

From these receipts, certain deductions are first to be made
for the Irish contribution to Imperial Expenditure, etc., and the
balance is then to be paid over to the Irish Treasury.

Ireland is to pay one -fifteenth as her portion of the whole
existing Imperial charge for debt (/aa, 000, 000 a year), representing a
capital sum of /48, 000, 000, and in addition a small sinking fund ; and
one-fifteenth of the normal charge for Army and Navy (;^25,ooo,ooo),
and for Imperial Civil charges (/"i, 650, 000). In addition, until she
supersedes the present police force, she is to pay ;^ 1,000,000 a year
(or less if the cost be less) towards the cost of the Royal Irish
Constabulary and the Dublin police.

Thus the Irish proportion of Imperial expenditure will be as

follows : —

Debt ... ... ... ;^i, 466,000

Sinking Fund ... ... 360,000

£1 ,826,000

Army and Navy ... ... 1,666,000

Civil expenditure ... ... 110,000

/3, 602, 000
Constabulary and police,.. ... 1,000,000

/4, 602, 000
This is the maximum amount payable, and it cannot be
increased for thirty years, when the question of contribution can be
again considered.

On the other hand, the amount can be reduced. (i) If in any
year the charge for the army and navy, or for the Imperial Civil
Service, is less than fifteen times the amount of the Irish con-
tribution, then the Irish charge will be reduced proportionately.

265

(2) If the cost of the constabulary or police fall below /"i, 000, 000 a
year, then the difference will be saved by the Irish Exchequer.

The estimated revenue from Irish Customs and Excise Customs,
duties, amounts to ;^6,i8o,ooo annually. From this is to be
deducted, by the English Treasury, a sum not exceeding four per
cent, for cost of collection, leaving a net amount of /5, 933, 000.

The debtor and creditor account, as between England and
Ireland, will then stand thus :

Expenditure.

For Imperial purposes... 3, 602, 000
Constabulary, etc. ...1,000,000
Collections of Customs

and Excise, maximum

4 per cent. ... ... 247,000

/4, 849, 000

Receipts.

Customs and Excise, ..6, 180, 000

/6, 1 80,000

Leaving a balance of ;^i,33i,ooo to be handed over by England to
the Irish Exchequer.

The Irish Government will take over all loans due to the
British Treasury and advanced for Irish purposes, and shall pay
the British Treasury an annual sum equivalent to three per cent,
interest on the amount with repayment in thirty years. The total
amount outstanding is some six millions, and the receipts and dis-
bursements of the Irish Government under this head will about
balance. The balance of the Irish Church surplus fund — about
/2o,ooo a year — is to be handed over to the Irish Government.

The following will show the further receipts and expenditure of
the Irish Government, as estimated by Mr. Gladstone on the basis
of existing expenditure and taxation, and may be put in the form of
a balance-sheet : —

Expenditure.

Irish Civil charges ...2,510,000
Colledion of revenue,

etc. ... ... 587,000

Balance, surplus ... 404,000

;^3,5oi,ooo

Revenue.

Repaid by England. ..1,331, 000
Stamps ... ... 600,000

Income Tax, at 8d. ... 550,000

Other sources of revenue

— Post Office, etc. ...1,020,000

;^3,5oi,ooo

266

This gives a surplus of ^404,000 to start with. But, in
addition, great savings of expenditure can be, and ought to be, made
in the Irish Civil charges and collection of revenue. Per head of
the population, they are now double what they are in England, and
at least ;^3oo,ooo or ;^40o,ooo should be saved. In addition, after
a time, the cost of the police ought to fall at least ;^2oo,ooo or
;^30o,ooo below the million allotted to that purpose.

Thus, with reasonable economy, the surplus at the disposal of
the Irish Government ought to amount to some ;^i,ooo,ooo a year —
a sum which will enable it readily to borrow money for public wants
and for public improvements.*

A Statesman's Far-seeing Policy.

The above will show how carefully the financial
question was laid open by the skilled hand of the
greatest financier of the day, and how strictly Imperial
rights were preserved to the Crown and the Imperial
Executive. It was evident that Mr. Gladstone's clear
mind saw further even than the important question of
pacifying Ireland ; he perceived also the future possiblility
of some great Imperial Scheme of Federation which should
be aided, and not retarded, by the granting of a Parliament
to Ireland.

The True Unionism.

The more the Bill is examined, the more candid men
must be astounded by the skill of the great statesman in
throwing such broad safeguards around Imperial interests,
and in making such extensive reservations, and yet at
meeting the sentiment and sense of justice expressed by
the Irish people. Mr. Gladstone disclaimed from the out-
set any wish to separate Ireland from the British Empire,
and expressed his belief that the bill would do more than
the Act of Union to maintain the Empire in its funda-

Mr, Gladstone's Irish Bills, pp. 13, i«.

267

mental and essential entirety. And I am persuaded that
the bill was based on justice and righteousness, was
calculated to tranquilise the people of Ireland, and would
have secured a truer and more permanent Union than can
ever be obtained by a forced Parliamentary amalgamation,
which is abhorred and rejected by the people of Ireland.
The truest Unionism is not the antiquated and compulsory
binding of an unwilling people to a stronger neighbour,
but the voluntary agreement of the peoples of the
'contiguous countries, and the consolidation of an empire
by the common consent of its various parts, and they are
the wisest Unionists who aim at a Union of hearts and
interests, and not of force and injustice.

Thp: Pace too Swift.

Broad and great as the measure was, it did not find
acceptance with the nation. Many of the trusted lieuten-
ants of the great Parliamentary captain fell away from him.
The pace was too swift for minds not alert to the question,
or for those whose political intuitions and surroundings
did not enable them to quickly seize and interpret the
primary and central demands, aspirations, and traditions
of the Irish.

The classes so long in the ascendancy protested
against the bill. Many good people, who held the franchise
as a sacred trust, were not sufficiently acquainted with
the history of Ireland and its needs to vote intelligently,
and they stayed away from the polls. The masses were
largely ignorant on the subject, and were apathetic. The
elections were lost chiefly by abstentions. Heavy bodies
move slowly at first, but afterwards the momentum becomes
irresistible. So it has ever been with the democracy.
But the great bulk of the Liberal Party, ever the effective

468

agent in all the great reforms of the past, were true to
their principles and true to their leader. They could not
overlook the fact that the towering genius, the wide
experience, and the high character of Mr. Gladstone made
him the safest guide on a great constitutional question like
this. Mr. Chamberlain, Lord Hartington, and the veteran
John Bright, were all esteemed by the party as men of
worth and character; but to the old leader — so often
victorious — the Liberal Party cried " excellent as these
men are, thou excellest them all."

Influence of Mr. Gladstone on Irish Agitation.

The inherent justice of the case is coming more fully
into view. No smaller measure will do. A solution of
the difficulty, however skilfully drawn up, which does not
meet the aspirations of nationality, and therefore is not
acceptable to Ireland, is only a remedy of quackery. The
only effective remedy must go to the root of the disease.
The responsive nature of the Irish people has bounded
with gratitude to the man who has sought to free the
nation from its sense of injustice by giving it the Parlia-
ment of which it was unjustly deprived. Whoever passes
a Home Rule Bill now, whether a coalition of a
Chamberlain and Churchill Party, or a Tory Party clinging
to office, the Irish people will see that Mr. Gladstone alone
has made their freedom possible at the present time.

The Pharos of old had King Ptolemy's name
inscribed on the plastered surface, but deep down in the
granite rock the builder Sostrasus of Cnidus carved his
own name, and when the plaster was chipped off by the
influence of wind and waves the name of the man of
genius stood revealed. So will it be in the case of Irish
self-government. Mr. Gladstone has forced the pace and

269

determined the running (whoever reaches the goal first)
and his name and work are restraining the Irish people
amidst the tyrannies of coercion more than all the laws
of Mr. Balfour.

The Voice of the Constituencies.

The high moral instincts and deep religious con-
scientiousness of the people of Wales guided them aright
at the polling booths ; Scotland, thoughtful and freedom-
loving, gave her adhesion to Mr. Gladstone's policy ; and
now the question has to be fought out in the English
constituences. The North of England voted steadily in
favour of Irish Emancipation, and there are not wanting
signs that the electoral divisions of the South of England
are becoming enlightened and decided in their adoption
of Home Rule principles. What the ultimate issue of
the contest is to be, none who are acquainted with
the might of Liberalism and the steady growth of
freedom, can doubt. Already signs of brightness are
increasing. The National Federation is sanguine, and the
voices of the towns are encouraging to the great leader of
the Liberal Party. The increased intelligence of the
people on the subject is beginning to tell a tale of good ;
and the question of self-government is only a matter of
time. The future is on the side of freedom. Prejudice is
giving way before the deepening of charity and the
spreading of light. Ignorance is fast waning.

Night's candles are burnt out,
And jocund day stands tiptoe
On the misty mountain top.

A Prophet's Purposes do not die with him.

Mr. Gladstone is cheered by seeing the patience and
hopefulness of the Irish Party, and the resoluteness and

270

buoyancy of his own immediate followers. Dissentient
Liberals, aiding their traditional foes — the Tories — may
delay the settlement of the great question — aye — may delay
it until the great leader has gone to his rest, but as the
spirit and purpose of the prophet of Horeb did not die
when the chariot of fire whirled him from human view, so
Mr. Gladstone's departure will not wreck the great work
he has entrusted to the Liberal party. Others will take as
a sacred trust from his hands the great work of securing
justice and self-government to the Irish nation. On
this point Sir Wm. Harcourt and Mr. John Morley have
spoken clearly. But as yet, the remarkable vigour of Mr.
Gladstone bids those who trust and revere him hope with
unabated ardour. The SL Stephen's Review presented in
one of its notorious cartoons the feature of a dead lion
with Mr. Gladstone's face, overtopped by a living dog
having the frontispiece of Lord Randolph Churchill, with
the Biblical motto " a living dog is better than a dead
lion." But the lion is not dead, and a living lion is ever
able to hold firmly a lesser quadruped. The issue will be
clear ; for as a thinker, a tactician, and a debater, Mr.
Gladstone ever stands, even in his advanced years,
head and shoulders above his contemporaries. And if
Dissentient Liberals refuse to weld the party again into
a homogeneous whole that shall carry reforms with speed
and ease, those who have remained faithful to their leader
must make up for the absence of old comrades by the
enrolment of new recruits.

No Vacancy in the Leadership.

In any case Mr. Gladstone should ever be made to
feel that he is not deserted or deposed. Mr. John
Morley's determined announcement at Leeds that "there

271

is no vacancy in the leadership of the Liberal Party " sent
a thrill of exultation and satisfaction through all ranks.
The political rivals for the leadership of the Party have
"made their throw for the Sixes," and have failed. They
cannot uproot the oak-like grip which Mr. Gladstone has
taken of his party and country. Their rival plans are full
of fatal defects, and in addition the Irish Nationalists say
" we will not have them." This in itself is an insuperable
objection to any permanent settlement of the question,
either by mere local government or the establishment of
provincial councils. The schemes suggested as alter-
natives are weak and futile. There is nothing for it but
loyalty to the national conscience and sense of justice.
There is much to be done. The difficulties are great.
We cannot in a moment undo the wrongs of Centuries.
Animosity may live for years in some Irish hearts.
Resentment may still burn in the breasts of those who
have passed through suffering and privation, and have seen
their dear ones driven out of life by iniquitous laws. The
children, now men, who were cast out on the road side by
infamous evictions will doubtless have difficulty in refusing
any longer to allow themselves to remain the repositories
of hate and mad vengeance. Many may never be made
friendly. But Englishmen may still hope, even for these,
as they see the great change which has come over Irish
opinion during the last few years.

England needs not to be afraid to Act Justly.

The electors may do much so that the Irish children
of the present and of the future shall not, when they
become men, be able to point to an unjust domination,
or an impious landlordism to palliate, if not justify, wrong-
doing. England that shewed her sense of justice in

27^

the freedom of West Indian slaves and in the Genevan
Arbitration, and that has again entered upon a path
of mercy and justice needs not to be afraid of doing
right. Unreason and passion, revenge and malice, cannot
live for ever. They can be overcome if the work of
righteous government be not forsaken.

The nation that in the Land Acts set its hand to the
plough must not turn back because of a few small impedi-
ments in the way. The straight furrow of justice and the
amelioration of a woe-stricken people must be turned up.
The National policy in Ireland and elsewhere must be in
accordance with advanced civilization, and a manly, robust
Christianity. The true resources of civilization must be
regarded as moral and elevating ones, and not merely
physical and restraining. And then, when the privilege
which has usurped power, the tyranny which has dominated
freedom, and the alienation which has obstructed the path
of peace are removed by just legislation, a bright and
happier era will be realized by England and Ireland. The
shafts of brightness are growing more and more into
radiant beams of glory, and I am assured that the Union
of Great Britain and Ireland in the future will not be one
of force, and law, but of love, and sympathy, and trust
which shall give to the world a splendid example of the
power, and glory of freedom and mutual confidence.

^ii^^i^p

Oldbury Place,

I G H T H A M ,

Sevenoaks,

September yd, 1888.

Dear Mr. Lloyd,

When some months ago you asked my permission for the
reprinting, in the admirable work which you are bringing out on the
Government of Ireland, of my letters to the Times in December and
January last on the subject of the dispute between Lord Clanricarde
and his tenants, I had no intention of republishing them myself.

Quite lately, however, the position of things is altered. The
renewal of evictions on a great scale by Lord Clanricarde, and the
very similar case of Lord Massereene and his tenants, have made it
necessary that I should myself submit the whole facts of these
cases to the public in a more permanent form. I propose to do this
by telling the story of these cases in a succinct manner, incor-
porating such parts of my letters to the Times as I think lend
themselves best to this treatment.

Under these cases I think you will agree with me that it would
be better that my letters should appear in this form rather than in
an appendix to your work. At the same time it will, of course, be
open to you to make what use you think fit of the facts and argu-
ments contained in my letters.

I must be allowed to add that I have read with the greatest
interest and advantage the three parts of your work already
published. They cannot fail to produce an impression on all who
read them ; and I hope they will be read by many who have not yet
seen their way to support that policy for Ireland, which we believe
is the only one capable of securing to it a good government, through
laws relating exclusively to its own affairs, framed by its own repre-
sentatives, and administered by officials responsible to them.

Believe me.

Yours very truly,

G. J. Shaw-Lefevre.

PART IV.

TORY OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE, AND
LORD SALISBURY'S ALTERNATIVES.

Mr. Gladstone's measures having been rejected by
Parliament and by the verdict of the constituencies, the
question which immediately faced English statesmen was
— What is now to be done for Ireland ? That the old
order of things could not be continued was plain to every
thoughtful mind. Statesmen of every shade of politics
acknowledged that the system of government which had
prevailed in Ireland was incapable of dealing with her
present needs. Mr. Gladstone clearly indicated the road
by which he believed the harmony and prosperity of the
country could be reached. His opponents declared that
this road led only to anarchy and separation, and was
crowded with difficulties insurmountable, except to those
who were prepared to reconquer Ireland by armed force.
The theory that some nations could not be trusted to
govern themselves was boldly announced by Lord
Salisbury, and the Hottentots were adduced as evidence
of this. The classing of Irishmen with Hottentots awoke
much indignation. Mr. Gladstone asserted that the only

274

alternative to Home Rule was the rigid enforcement of the
worn-out methods of Coercion. This was denied by
Tories and Dissentient Liberals, some of them declaring
that they would not hold their seats for the purpose of
applying Coercion to Ireland. When afterwards charged
with having broken faith with the constituencies there was
but one member in the House bold enough to assert that
he had been elected on the question of Coercion. This
was the Tory member for East Bradford — the Parliamentary
Secretary of the Church Defence Association — Mr. H.
Byron Reed. Those who denied that Coercion was the
only alternative to Home Rule were soon called upon to
prove their position by the adoption of some alternative
that should show itself approved by its humane and just
provisions. Twenty years of firm government would, it
was asserted by the new Premier — Lord Salisbury — make
the Irish willing to accept the boons of the United Parlia-
ment. The desertion of eminent men from the Unionist
party has since shown the failure of its leaders to produce
the boasted alternative.

Those who rejected Mr. Gladstone's measures had to
justify their action by the production of legislation that
should bear upon its surface that impress of civilisation and
enlightenment which should prove its adaptation to present
requirements. When Lord Chesterfield was asked by a lady
— a French sceptic — why the English Parliament tolerated
the Christian religion, he is said to have replied : "Because,
Madam, they have not discovered anything better to put
into its place." The country asked the Unionists leaders
for the better plans for governing Ireland, now that Mr.
Gladstone's schemes were rejected by them. This was a
reasonable demand.

The objections to the Home Rule Bill were many.
It was said that the character of the proposals was
unexpected; that the two orders of representatives would
make the Parliament cumbrous and unworkable ; that the
Irish members should not be excluded from Westminster,
and yet should not do their own business in Ireland and
then come over and interfere with matters pertaining to
Scotland and England. Many other objections were
stated, but most of them may be classified under three
heads— Political, Religious, and those based on Ex[)cdiency.
An unwonted affection was shown for Irish representatives.
Men who, following Lord Salisbury, declared that one Tory
member was worth all the Irish representatives, now
found that they could not part with them from West-
minster on any grounds. Unionists announced their
confidence in a great principle of Liberalism — no taxation
without representation. The bill was too radical for some,
and too conservative for others. It was too conservative
because it admitted the two orders of representatives, and
it was too radical because it did not give to the Peerage
sufficient recognition. In vain Mr. Gladstone pointed out
that all he desired was a recognition of the principles and
essential parts of the bill, and that these objections were
only objections to details which could be amended in
Committee.

Political Objections.

The two Parliaments, it was said, would be likely to
clash with each other, and in consequence of divisions, the
Empire would be weakened. Then, it would be dis-
advantageous to England in other senses to have a rival
authority in Dublin. In re'ply to this, it is not enough to
say that this was an argument founded on expediency, and

276

that no question of expediency can ever justify a moral
wrong, or give virtue to a public injustice. The true
answer may be found in the fact that Mr. Gladstone's
Parliament for Ireland was to be a statutory one, having
the limits of its power clearly defined, and throwing round
Imperial questions and certain selected subjects the aegis of
its protection. It was not to be co-ordinate in power with
the Parliament at Westminster, but subordinate to it,
inasmuch as it was created by statute and limited by statute
made at Westminster. It could further be restrained by
the action of the Lord Lieutenant, when any of its acts
infringed on Imperial rights, or transgressed the liberties
allowed it. Mr. Parnell, in his place in Parliament, said
" We have recognised that the Legislature which the
Prime Minister proposes to constitute is a subordinate
Parliament, and that it is not the same as Grattan's
Parliament, which was coequal with the Imperial Parlia-
ment." It was also stated that the granting of it would
silence Irish agitation, and be regarded as a final settlement
of the vexed question of government.

Ireland and Scotland Compared.

In the course of the controversy it was said Ireland had
no need of such a Parliament, even though it was to be sub-
ordinate ! Why should the Irish have more self-government
than the Scotch people ? Several speakers in the House of
Commons and on public platforms pointed to the union
between England and Scotland, and the good results which
followed the amalgamation of the legislatures of these
countries, and asked — " Why is Ireland not as happy and
contented as the country beyond the Tweed ?" The answer
is a plain and easy one. The Scotch people generally
acquiesced in the Union, notwithstanding that there were

^7?

gome who lamented the loss which would be felt at
Edinburgh by the removal of legislators and gentry.
The Union was secured openly by mutual arrangement
and consent. In the United Parliament Scottish interests
have, on the whole, been fairly considered, and Scottish
prejudices and aspirations have been respected and
honoured with attention. As much as possible Scottish
demands have been recognised, and positions in Scotland
and in the management of Scottish affairs at Westminster
have been given to Scotchmen. The Crown and Parlia-
ment have appeased Scotland by annual attentions, and by
maintaining royal residences there. The religion of
Scotland was not assailed. English Episcopacy was not
forced upon the Presbyterian descendants of Knox and
Melville and the stern children of the Covenant. The
education of the youth of Scotland was carried out in
harmony with the spirit and intentions of the great Scotch
leadersof the past by the foremost Scotchmenof the present.
Hence, though at times dissatisfaction has been expressed
at trivial grievances and at real ones, at the tardiness with
which measures affecting the local interests of Scotland
were attended to, and at the annual exodus of the leaders
of public life and the nobility of Scotland from Edinburgh
to London, the dissatisfaction has been allayed by prudent
concessions and attentions before it could develop into an
attempt to separate the legislatures. But the Union with
Ireland was not secured by mutual consent. It was not
effected justly and freely. It deprived her of her native
laws. It kept her children for years in ignorance, weighted
by the burden of civil and religious disabilities. It main-
tained for more than half a century an establishment of
religion to which the majority of the country were opposed.
It treated the people of Ireland as inferior beings to the

^78 .

inhabitants of Great Britain. It refused to listen to the
voice of Irish representatives. It gave the posts of
government in Ireland to the disciples of a favoured sect.
It placed English officials at the head of Irish government
as Chief Secretaries and Lord Lieutenants. It laid
Irish patriots under the ban of disfavour and neglect. It
honoured servile and selfish men who traitorously betrayed
their country, while it despised and denounced men who
gave their lives and energies to the alleviation of the
miseries of the land. In short it was a Union which
centralised government, did not federate the peoples,
buttressed a dominant church of the minority, and
attempted to degrade the self-respect of the Irish
patriot.

Ulster's Superiority.

It was further objected that Ulster excelled other
parts of the country and should be chiefly considered.
Ulster was called the Loyal territory. It had for years
received favoured treatment, as compared with the rest of
Ireland. In many ways it had been pampered and petted.
Every Irish question was considered before it was dealt
with in the light of the enquiry — "Does Ulster approve
of this ? " It was principally inhabited by Protestants,
and its chief town, Belfast, had been created on English
models ; so that an Englishman on looking at its wide
streets and stately buildings felt as though he was in one
of the towns of his own loved isle. But it is a mistake
to think that Ulster is superior to every other division of
the country. Notwithstanding its special treatment, and
the favourable land system which prevailed, Ulster does
not compare well with some of the other provinces as will
be seen in the following tables.

2^9

Mr. T. M. Healy quotes the returns of the Income
Tax Assessment Office, presented to Parhament in
1882. A special pamphlet on this matter has also been
issued by the Irish Parliamentary Party. From these
sources we learn the followino: facts : — '^'

Income-tax
per head of
population.

Income-tax
assessment
in 1879-80.

Population
in 1881.

Leinster

. /lo 6 9 .

■ •£

13,272,202 .

. 1,282,881

Munster

607.

7,980,276 .

. 1,323,910

Ulster

5 14 5 .

9,052,289 .

. 1,789,542

Connaught .

3 13 7 ■

2,995.43^ .

813,506

The comparison between Belfast and Dublin is
equally unfavourable :--

Income-tax J^'T'-'^f Population

..Ur^^^^A assessment ."^ oo

charged... .^^ ^g^^.^^^ m 1881.

Dublin .. ;^io2,6o9 .. /5, 368, 758 .. 273,064

Belfast .. 40,736 .. 2,200,842 .. 207,671

The contrast between whyt the Orangemen call *' the
progressive commercial capital of Ireland" and decaying
Dublin, they explain by saying that Dublin's income
chiefly comes from the Imperial Civil Service Establish-
ments, which are supposed to enrich that city. Take,
therefore, an Ulster and a Munster city of equal popula-
tions, where no such considerations can arise : —

Income-tax Income-tax Population

charged. assessment 1879-80. in 1881.

Londonderry.. /3,98i .. ^223, 775 .. 28,947
Waterford .. 6.253 •• 336,272 .. 28,952

Schedule D of the Income Tax Assessments shows
the payments made on profits in professions and trades.

* "Healy— A Word for Ireland," Pages 155-8.

28o

It should naturally demonstrate Ulster's manufacturing
superiority ; but here are the figures : —

Leinster ..

Schedule D
assessment.

;^5,29i,46i

Assessment
per inhabitant.

.. /4 2 6

Ulster . .

2,527,344

191

Munster ..

1,811,343

174

Connaught

249,088

061

The test of valuation and contribution to local rates,
as shewn by return No. 164, presented to Parliament in
1884, are also remarkable : —

Valuation of Valuation per

rateable property. inhabitant.

Leinster .. .. ;^4,7ii,i93 .. ;^3 13 5

Munster .. .. 3,365,182 .. 2 10 10

Ulster .. .. 4,348,713 .. 2 9 il

Connaught .. 1,431,019 .. i 15 2

If in consequence of these figures it is contended that
"Protestant" Ulster is prejudiced by being included with
** Catholic " Ulster, the answer is that, tested county by
county with the rest of Ireland, these returns prove,
that either as to income-tax assessment or valuation
ratings, the four most Protestant counties in Ulster are
distanced by fourteen Catholic ones in the south.

The estimated value of live stock, and average size
and valuation of the holdings in the four provinces,
afford another test of wealth {^Thorn's Almanac, 1886) : —

V .lue of cattle,
Sleep and pigs.

-Average size of
holdings (acres).

Average valua-
. tion of holdings.

Munster

^20,048, 949

• /25

Leinster

16,938,867

36 .

Ulster

15,667,364

Connaught . .

10,857,097

The comparative poverty of the different provinces
may be judged also by a return (C. 4059, 1884) of the rent
extinguished under the Arrears Act, 1882 : —

2S]

No. of holdings
affected.

Tiitals arrears
wiped off.

Yearly rental of
holdings affected.

Connaught .

. 52,883 .

. /634,33i

•• ;^3o8,456

Ulster

. 41,134 .

. 561.391

. . 357.398

Munster

. 18,994 .,

341,198

. . 282,563

Leinster

12,879

223,902

•• 163,533

Thus it is apparent that the farmers of Ulster, who
enjoyed the security of tenant-right generations before it
was extended to the rest of Ireland, were obliged to avail
themselves of the protection of the Arrears Act to nearly
as great an extent as those of impoverished Connaught ;
whereas in the "League-ridden" provinces of Munster
and Leinster, with their ''dishonest" and "agitating"
peasantry, not half as many farmers were behind in their
payments to the landlords, or alleged that they were unable
to pay their rent.

If prosperity is shown by higher emigration, then
Ulster is prosperous, for there was absolutely and relatively
a greater drain from the North than elsewhere during the
last decade : —

Decrease, 1871-81. Decrease per cent.

Ulster .. .. 93,686 .. 5-38

Munster . . . . 69,575 . . 5*26

Leinster . . . . 59.998 • . 4'68

Connaught . . . . 29,279 . . 3*59

As to illiteracy, the Northern province shows no pre-
eminence, although Protestant education has never been
proscribed, whereas the Catholics have been shamefully
treated in educational matters : —

Percentage able to
read and write.

Leinster . . . . . . 58-5

Ulster .. .. .. 53-4

Munster . . . . . . 53-2

Connaught .. .. .. 41-5

281

Injudicious champions sometimes claim a specially
God-fearing quality for the North ; but, so far as the
statistics of drunkenness and illegitimacy go, the figures
are less unfavourable to the "priest-ridden" South and West
Ulster certainly can boast the greatest freedom from
evictions, and consequent agrarian crime ; but its sturdy
farmers would hardly be flattered by being told that they
would bear the razing of their roof-trees with more meek-
ness than other men ; and it is but forty years since the
agent of Lord Londonderry declared, that the oppressions
common in the South would provoke outrages that would
" make Down another Tipperary."

But Ulster, while it possesses a majority of Protestants
has also a large resident Catholic population.*

It may be well to add here, from the Parliamentary
Return already quoted, the exact figures as regards
Protestants and Catholics in the Ulster constituencies.
The constituencies are divided in the following tabular
statement into two groups ; in the first of which, as will
be seen, the Protestants are 74*25 per cent., and in the
second of which, that is to say, on three-fourths of Ulster's
surface — the Catholics are 63'77 P^^ cent., or nearly
two-thirds : —

Antrim

Down, N. E. &W. ..

Armagh, N. & M. ..

Catholics.

113. 146
37.206
37.935

Protestants.

337.719

137,044

68,099

188,287

542,862

Pamphlet on Ulster, — Published by the National League.

283

II.

Catholics.

Protest.ints

Donegal

157,608

48.427

Fermanagh . .

47.359

37.520

Cavan

104,685

24,791

Monaghan . .

75.714

27,034

Londonderry

73.274

91.717

Tyrone

109,793

87,926

Armagh, S. . .

34.277

16,921

Down, S. . .

32,458

26,832

Newry

10,111

5.479

645,285

366,651

If Belfast were excluded, the Catholics would be in
a decided majority in Ulster. It will be seen from the
above that in thrre parts of Ulster the majority of Catholics
to Protestants is as two to one. While in the other part,
the north-east quarter, including Belfast, mainly the
Protestants are three to one. It is significant to note that
notwithstanding the slight preponderance of Protestant
inhabitants and electors in Ulster that the province has
not rejected Mr. Gladstone's scheme, inasmuch as an
actual majority of the representatives have been returned
to suppoit him in carrying out his purposes. In
the Times of June 7th, 1884, it was said: — '* The
truth is that Ulster is by no means the homogene-
ous Orange and Protestant community which it suits
the Orangemen to represent it. In some counties
the Catholics are in a large majority, and it must be
acknowledged, we fear, that the Nationalists have a much
stronger hold on many parts of Ulster than it is at all
satisfactory to contemplate."

Even Derry, the very centre of Irish Protestantism,
has raised its voice and expressed approval of Home

l§4

Rule. There is a greater contrast in the present methods
of dealing with England and Ireland than the Irish are
ever likely to have in governing the peoples of the various
provinces by a Home Rule Parliament. Many Protestants
in Ulster have begun to see this, and are voting and
acting accordingly.

Too Much Concession.

Another objection was that Mr. Gladstone's bill
conceded too much, and that neither the justice nor the
necessities of the case demanded such large concessions.

This is a stale objection in English politics. It is
one that has been freely used in relation to the English
Democracy. It is the chief article in the stock-in-trade
of Tory opponents to popular measures. The House of
Lords exists for the purpose of giving effect to this
objection, and in the exercise of their rights the Peers
limit and cut down, in every possible way, the instalments
of justice paid to the working classes of the three
kingdoms. The bound Gulliver must never be treated to
a hearty meal, and wholesome draughts to quench his
thirst. He must be kept tied down, and be fed with
thimbles. Yet these objectors to Mr. Gladstone's scheme
also say that Ireland will never be satisfied with the
Home Rule Parliament of Mr. Gladstone. Will the
Irish people be satisfied with a smaller gift then ? When
Lord John Russell suggested a smaller measure, somewhat
similar to the one proposed by Mr. Chamberlain, he was
met with the same objection — ** You are conceding too
much."

Earl Russell said in 1872, "It appears to me
that if Ireland were to be allowed to elect a representative
assembly for each of its four provinces of Leinster,

285

Ulster, Munster, and Connaught, and if Scotland in a
similar manner were to be divided into Lowlands and
Highlands, having for each province a representative
assembly, the local wants of Ireland and Scotland might
be better provided for than they are at present. The
Imperial Parliament might still retain its hold over this
legislation, and refuse, if it so chose, to give a third
reading to any bill assented to on its first and second
readings, and on the report by the local assembly."

Mr. Chamberlain would go further than this to-day,
but even this was too far for some politicians. They cried
*' restore the Heptarchy indeed ! " They poured ridicule
upon the idea. They said the proposal would mean a
repeal of the Union and disaster.

Irishmen not to be Trusted.

Then again it was stated that the Irish were not fit to
be trusted with self-government. This appears to be the
view of Lord Salisbury, but it was not his opinion a few
years ago. Tennyson in his '* Northern Farmer" has hit
off this argument in a way which covers it with derision
and contempt.

Tis'n them as 'as munny as breaks into 'ouses an' steals,
Them as' as coats to their backs an' taakes their regular

meals ;
Noa, but it's them as niver knaws where a meal's to be 'ad.
Taake my word for it, Sammy, the poor in a loomp is bad."

Old Tory Cries.

Unfortunately this seems the opinion of the Tories
respecting the Catholic peasantry of Ireland, and the
Protestant supporters of Home Rule. It is surprising
that the stagy cries of old opponents of reform are being
reproduced. One might fancy that Mr. Edison's phono-

28fa

graph had been known for half a century, and that the
utterances of modern politicians are only the revived cries
of Lord Eldon and the Duke of Wellington, spoken in the
days when the English working-man was at the mercy of
a dominant class composed of landlords and aristocrats.
The author of the life of Sir John Perrott said : — "To say
the truth, the people of that country (Ireland) love to be
justly dealt with by their governors, however they deal
with each other, and will do more at the command of their
governors, whom they repute and have found to be just,
than by the strict execution of the laws or constraint of
any force or power."

One nobleman — the Duke of Buckingham — said of
the Reform Bill of 1832 that it was to be compared to a
" spell," and in relation to it the words of Shakespeare
might be applied, for it would be found to —

Untie the winds and let them fight

Against the churches— to let the yeasty waves

Confound and swallow navigation up ;

To let the castles topple on our heads,

And palaces and pyramids to stoop

Their heads to the foundations.

Another noble lord declared that '' The proper name
for Reform was Republicanism. The demon of Repub-
licanism in all its hide was before them in that Bill. He
trusted that it would find its final repose in that House,
that it would be buried in a ' Red Sea ' of rest, no more to
fright the isle from its propriety." The middle class was
declared unfit to be trusted with the franchise ; Noncon-
formists were branded as unfit to be freed from civil and
religious disabilities ; the householders of the counties
were thought unfit to march to the ballot-box to record
their convictions and desires ; the Jews were thought unfit

287

10 be trusted with Parliamentary position. The men who
assert that the Irish are unfit to be trusted with the
management of their own business are the lineal descend-
ants of the loud- spoken gentry who in the past declared
that privileges and power ought not to be extended to the
masses because they had not the same character and
intelligence as the squires and clergy of the parochial
districts of the country. It cannot be that the Irish are
wanting in the genius of government and progress.
Thrust out from their own land by iniquitous laws, and
prevented from using their intellect in the government of
their own land, they have gone to other climes and have
resolutely marched to the highest places in the national
life of their adopted countries. They have manifested
energy, intellect and capacity for administrative work,
as witness the positions achieved by Sir Gavan Duffy in
Australia, Darcy McGee in Canada, and the gifted
Meagher in the United States of America. Marshall
McMahon, of France, was an Irishman, and the most
brilliant and successful of British diplomatists to-day —
who has proved his power in the Governships of Canada
and India, and in diplomatic posts of Russia and Turkey
— is Lord Dufferin, an Irishman.

England's Interference with other Nations.

Men have been wrong in insinuating that the Irish
people are weighted down by a double portion of original
sin. They have been criminal in asserting that the Irish
are defective in character, and would use a government in
Dublin to achieve the ends of rebels in other lands. Union-
ists have objected to Irish agitation because it is sustained
by funds sent by the Irishmen of America. But English-
men— Tories and Liberals — have freely sent funds and

men to foreign lands to help those who, in widening the
bounds of freedom, have fought against enthroned
governments. From the days when Lord Byron, by his
writings and example, roused the youthful nobility of
England to flock in large numbers to the aid of the
Greeks in their struggles for liberty, to the time when
Englishmen under Garibaldi aided the patriots of Italy to
deal deadly blows at the despotism of Bomba and the
temporal power of the Pope, England has sent men and
money to foster foreign agitations, and to further the self-
government of aspiring nationalists. Who sympathised with
Koscuisko and the Poles ? Who sustained the heart and
strengthened the arm of Kossuth and the patriots of
Hungary? Who hooted and assailed the despotic Austrian
General in the streets of London, and who afforded an
asylum of rest and a welcome to the men who fled for escape
from the tyranny of the Bourbons ? Englishmen ! Yet these
men are now complaining because patriots, driven from
their country into America, send help and advice to those
who loyally stand by the side of the peasantry of Ireland
at the present time. Do we claim the right to do what no
other people may do ? Are we giving voice and meaning
to the old adage that one man may steal a horse while
another must not look over the hedge ? What has been
the cry of British Statesmen in the past ; a cry echoed and
re-echoed by the people of England ? This, that every
nation has a right to be governed in accordance with her
interests and desires, and is the best judge of what is
necessary and expedient.

Ireland and Southern States.

Lord Hartington has attempted to institute a parallel
between Ireland and the Southern States of America. The

2^9

parallel limps. It is not on all fours. The Southern
States never were a distinct nationality ; Ireland was, and
still is, a distinct people. The Confederacy and the Irish
nation are widely apart in history and character. The
former endeavoured to secure a separate existence in the
interests of slave holders for the purpose of perpetuating
slavery. Ireland aimed at a separate legislature only, not
a separate national existence. It demanded it in the
interests of those who have been kept as slaves in the
houses their fathers built, and on the lands their fathers
drained and improved.

National feeling cannot be extinguished by brutal
methods of government, or by the neglect of long-
standing grievances, or by inattention to the urgent needs
of a country. The iron hand of the Russian autocrat, and
the stern repressive laws of the Teuton, have been unable
to drive out of the Slavonic races their national sympathies
and aspirations. When a statesman deplored, in the
hearing of Garabaldi, the failure of government in
Ireland, the General is reported to have said *' Try
freedom." It was a pertinent and instructive piece of
advice, and as pungent as the criticism of Punch, which
represented the Russian Emperor as saying to an English
monarch, with the maps of Europe before him and his
fingers placed on Poland and Ireland, " It seems we are
both wrong." Yet England has called out for the nations
of the East to keep their streets clean, while she has
neglected the scouring of her own doorstep.

Lord Salisbury's Opinion.
In 1865 Lord Salisbury said: — "Before you can
decide what is the remedy for Irish distress you must
ascertain what is its cause. Except the right hon. baronet

2^0

the Chief Secretafy, we all admit that Ireland is distressed.
From what does that distress arise ? What is the reason
that a people with so bountiful a soil, with such enormous
resources, lag so far behind the English in the race ?
Some say that it is to be found in the character of the
Celtic race ; but I look to France and I see a Celtic race
there going forward in the path of prosperity with most
rapid strides — I believe at the present moment more
rapidly than England herself. Some people say it is to
be found in the Roman Catholic religion ; but I look to
Belgium and I find there a people second to none in
Europe, except the English, for industry, singularly pros-
perous, considering the small space of country that they
occupy, having improved to the utmost the natural
resources of that country, but distinguished among all the
peoples of Europe for the earnestness and intensity of
their Roman Catholic belief. Therefore, I cannot say
that the cause of the Irish distress is to be found in the
Roman Catholic religion. An hon. friend near me says
that it arises from the Irish people listening to demagogues.
I have as much dislike to demagogues as he has, but when
I look to the Northern States of America I see there a
people who listen to demagogues, but who undoubtedly
have not been wanting in material prosperity. It cannot
be demagogues, Romanism, or the Celtic race. What,
then, is it ? / am afraid that the one thing that has been
peculiar to Ireland has been the Government of England. ^^"^

Purposes of Government.

How can this be reconciled with the Hottentot
theory. Kossuth, the Hungarian patriot, said " Govern-
ment is an organism, not a mechanism." That is, that it

"Hansard," February 24th, 1865.

29r

is a living growth and is indigenous to the soil; it is not to
be planted in lands where it cannot thrive, it must rise out
of the character and traditions of the people. The history
of Ireland stands as a witness to this.

John Stuart Mill defines the purposes of govern-
ment as order and progress, and Coleridge says that they
are summed up in the words " Permanence and Pro-
gression." But Ireland has only progressed, if progress it
can be called, towards greater poverty and misery, because
the methods of government there have not served the
purposes of government. Locomotion by gravitation is
surer than any other kind, but it is unprofitable and
deplorable. The downward tendency must be arrested or
ruin is near. To see a nation sink lower, year by year,
while its neighbours rise to higher positions in wealth,
population and happiness, should arouse the sorrow of
every patriot. Englishmen have not shown themselves fit
to be trusted in the government of Ireland in the past, or
why the poverty, decline and discontent of that nation ?
Is it not a stigma upon English governors that, after
centuries of government in Ireland, the most enlightened
and progressive nation has not made the people of that
country fit to be trusted. But a stronger question
remains. Will a continuance of this government ever
make them fit to be trusted ? The Tory Cabinet of Lord
Salisbury evidently have doubts on the subject, and have
not much confidence in their remedial policy, for they
have passed a Crimes Act with a clause ensuring
perpetuity.

Home Rule a Pretext for Separation.

A further objection is one which has obtained much
currency and has been considered of standard value, viz.,

292

that the establishment of a Home Rule Parliament is only
a pretext for separation. But the argument is not valid.
The coin is only base metal to be nailed to the counter.
The ditty says —

John took his hammer

And said with a frown
That coin is spurious ;

Nail it down.

The constituences are saying this at the bye- elections.

It has been openly stated that separation is what is
being aimed at. Mr. Gladstone has been charged with
being the Arch-separatist of the times, gulling his
followers by his verbosity, and blindly leading a sightless
party toward the gulf of Imperial dissolution.

The Irish leaders, as well as Mr. Gladstone, have
strongly denied this charge. Responsible statesmen,
referring again to the statutory character of the proposed
Dublin Parliament, have declared that in granting Home
Rule England and Scotland will not concede the right of
the Imperial Parliament — if necessary in the interests of
the Empire — to interfere with the Parliament on College
Green. England has never conceded this right in the case
of the Colonies, and if there has not been any interference,
it is because the clashing of interest has not been con-
sidered sufficiently serious to justify Imperial action.

Mr. John Dillon, M.P., asks what are the grounds
of this unreasonable fear.?'^* He cries "Good heavens,
what has England come to ?" He ridiculed the fear that
27,000,000 of Englishmen, with arms and fleets at their
backs, should be no match for 4,000,000 of Irishmen, if the
latter demanded separation. He contended "that it
would be better for England in the eyes of the civilized

* Speech at Cambridge.

293

world to try the experiment of Home Rule than to go on
governino;- as she was now doing. She would then be able
to say '* we have given you full justice and liberty. If you
choose to separate, we will fight you squarely and put you
down ! England would then have the sympathy of the
civilized world and could justify her action." There is
force in this. A democratic country like England ought
not to grind down a kindred people near her own shores.
A nation renowned for prowess and courage ought not to
stand terrified at the thought of giving free government to
a people at her doors. With ironclads and armies, and
with the still stronger forces which a conviction of right
gives to a nation, what would there be to fear from
the Irish people ?

Mr. T. D. Sullivan, at Bradford,^' referred to this
question of separation, and declared : — " That the Home
Rule Bill, instead of being a separatist measure, had a
tendency to fuse the two nations in friendship and love
together, and to make between the two peoples a real and
lasting union which did not now exist, and had not existed
for generations. He contended that the possibility of
separation became more chimerical and remote every day.
Under the Home Rule system the Irish people would have
neither army nor navy, but the Imperial forces would
remain as they are. The last thing they would do would
be to organize an army and navy to compete with those of
England. Of the Irish people, he said, there were less
than 5,000,000, and the Unionists claimed a large propor-
tion. Supposing then that the disloyalist population, as
they were called, numbered 3,000,000, the Unionists asked
the English nation numbering 30,000,000 to be afraid of
the 3,000,000 who were without arms, money, or resources

* Speech in St, George's Hall.

294

of any kind. Dean Swift said long ago that * eleven men
well armed would surely subdue one man in his shirt.'
Yet these 'Unionists' held that eleven Englishmen well
armed should be afraid of one Irishman in his shirt."

Mr. William O'Brien said^' that '* there were some
people in his country who used the word ' separation ' to
frighten the English. Most of the English people
believed the Irish people were not such fools as to want
separation. England was Ireland's best customer, and the
English people wanted to see 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 of
people in Ireland instead of 5,000,000. Archbishop
Walsh declared that with a liberal measure of autonomy
to Ireland, there was no country he would prefer to live
under so much as England. That a faithful alliance
between a freed Ireland and a friendly England, under one
Crown and one Imperial Government, would be preferable
to that of any alliance under heaven. And this is the
language of the leaders of the Liberal Party and the
Nationalists.

Even Mr. Michael Davitt, whose opinions are among
the most republican and advanced of any of the Irish
leaders, and who has suffered greatly as the result of
English misgovernment, has stated that though in principle
he has been a Separatist yet in policy he is not, for he sees
no prospect of Ireland securing separation, and believes
that it would be for the advantage of the country to be
true to the English alliance, if only Ireland were justly
treated and made her own laws for her internal govern-
ment. To attempt separation would be the last desperate
resource of a nation maddened by injustice. Centuries of
wrong may have made men in Ireland wish for total

* Speech near Boyle.

295

separation from England, but every year of good govern-
ment and prosperity will lessen the feeling and desire in
the heart of the most inveterate hater of England, and
will make the people cherish the English alliance, and
preserve it amidst all the threats or blandishments of
foreign powers.

Are the Irish Ungrateful or Incompetent ?

What are the chief charges made against the Irish
and asserted to be the ground of the last two objections ?
Charges of ingratitude and incompetence are too vague
and unreal to be seriously answered. Not only have
Irishmen prospered in other lands, but many of the
greatest warriors and legislators of our land have been
men through whose veins the blood of the Celt has run.
From Wellington to Wolseley the army has had as its
brightest ornaments the sons of Irishmen, while on the
Bench and at the Bar the most eloquent and learned of the
profession have been men of the same nationality as
O'Connell and Sir Charles Russell. The splendid response
of the Irish to the overtures of the Liberal leader, the burial
of the hatchet of warfare by the most desperate and
violent of the Irish nation, and the glow of gratitude
which suffuses Irish hearts to-day, all evoked by the
generous and sympathetic wizardry of one great statesman
leading a just democracy bent upon reparation and restitu-
tion, are a sufficient answer to the charge of ingratitude.

Boycotting.

But the charges chiefly made are those of exclusive
dealing or boycotting, of intimidation, of being steered by
foreign policy and sustained by foreign gold, and of
being associated with outrage and moonlight murders.

296

These have been made in public prints and on public
platforms. Exclusive dealing, called boycotting after
Captain Boycott, one of the first to be treated with a
taste of this policy, was popularised by a speech of Mr.
Parnell's. It has been the policy of the Irish leader to
draw the people away from harsh measures of cruelty and
reprisal to methods more constitutional and human.
Deprecating outrage and crime, he showed the people
what he deemed a more excellent way of dealing with the
enemies of the country, and those who weakly and
foolishly yielded to them, and thus made it harder for
patriots to secure just concessions. '* Shun them," said
he, referring to those who were unfaithful to their neigh-
bours. It was regarded at the time by Mr. Parnell and
others of the party as the only way in which the tenants
could protect themselves from treachery and cupidity, and
the rapacious maw of the landlord class.

Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P., describes boycotting in
the following lines: —

No ! We shall leave untilled — unsown —

The lands, however fair,
From which an honest man was thrown

Upon the roadside bare,
As though a curse were on the spot

That saw such hateful deeds ;
We'll leave the empty house to rot,

The ground to choke with weeds.

However much the policy may be condemned, it has
prevented farms from being taken, and has had a whole-
some effect in. controlling men whose greed and selfishness
would have made them disregard the needs and sufferings
of their neighbours, in a wild attempt to benefit them-
selves.

297

But boycotting is no new thing. It is practised in
one form or another throughout the country. Girls at
school send tale-bearers to Coventry, and even so saintly a
man as the Rev. William Arthur, Ex- President of the
Wesleyan Methodist Church, declared in the open Confer-
ence that he could not conscientiously write an article on
Methodist Union to the Methodist Times because that paper
supported Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Policy. Boycotting
has been in operation for many years, and is frequently
practised. It is one of the sharpest weapons in the
armoury of the Primrose League, and is wielded with
terrible effect by noble Primrose Dames in the small towns
and villages of England. It has been clutched and used
by the dignitaries of the Church and magnates of the
agricultural shires, and it is freely applied by men in the
strongholds of Orangedom.

Boycotting in England.

Mr. Herbert Gladstone, in West Leeds, declared
that in regard to intimidation, to combination, and to boy-
cotting, the Unionist and the landlord party sinned more
heavily than did the Nationalist Party. He said : — ** The
most shameful instances of boycotting are recorded against
them not only in Ireland but in England. He had heard
of the case of a schoolmaster in the South of England
who had over thirty pupils withdrawn by their Liberal-
Unionist and Conservative parents, because he had
ventured to take a leading part in a bye-election. He had
heard of scores of tradesmen in the villages and counties
being ruined by the withdrawal of custom from similar
causes." And this is the testimony which comes from all
the rural districts in the land. Shopkeepers afraid to
express their views because of their Conservative customers.

298

Farmers and labourers driven to prevarication and decep-
tion by the canvass of landlords and their wives who
belong to the Primrose Habitation. Men boycotted by
squires and parsons because of their religion, their
politics, or their independence of character. It may be
argued that " two blacks do not make one white." I
admit it, and I only ask for the acknowledgment that
boycotting is as black when done by a titled lady as by a
struggling peasant. That which is called a vice in one case
cannot be a virtue in the other, unless indeed the conditions
are altogether different. What is the difference in the cases ?
In Ireland boycotting is carried on in the interests of the
poorest, whom the law does not sufficiently protect from
injustice, and whom the wealthier classes have treated
with scorn and immoral pressure, because it is the only
weapon available to the downtrodden to prevent men from
conspiring with the landlord to rob him of his living.
But in England it has been used by the wealthy against
the poor, by people who need not use it as a weapon,
seeing that there are plenty of influences always available
for the maintenance of a dominant church and gilded
class. These things in England, I only adduce to give
emphasis to a gospel statement, that only he who is
without fault should throw the first stone, and therefore
the parade of Irish boycotting as a national crime comes
with bad grace from those who are supporters of the
Primrose League.

Are the Leaders to be Charged with the Crimes
OF Misguided Followers.

That there has been much intimidation, boy-
cotting, and outrage in some parts of Ireland, no Irish
statesman or Liberal politician will deny. But are

299

all the excesses of phrenzied partisans to be charged at
the doors of public leaders ? Rascaldom ever pours out
its scum, when patriotism is fighting a successful battle.
And in proportion as a cause has the promise of victory,
so violent and selfish men identify themselves with it, but
he would be an unwise critic who charged all the crimes
of evil men to the credit of patriotic leaders.

In the French-Canadian War and the American
War of Independence the English, French and American
forces were supported by allies from the Indian tribes,
who scalped the dying and inflicted tortures on
prisoners. But no sane historian will lay these crimes
at the doors of the brave General Wolfe, or the upright
patriot Washington. Can it be said that all the Hungarian
patriots were men pure-minded and wise ? Can it be
declared with truth that Garibaldi's motley crowd of
patriots were men in whose hearts the bright and pure
light of abstract patriotism had destroyed all fiercer and
wilder passions ? Are the political parties of England
only composed of academical, studious, law abiding citizens ?
Boycotting in a proper state of society, where constitu-
tional methods are available, would be a crime, but
boycotting instead of inspiring outrage was meant to
prevent it, and was only adopted in the dearth of other
means of saving the peasantry. Even Samson could not
choose his weapon in his conflict with the enemies of his
land. The jawbone was a poor weapon, but it was better
than none, and was made efl"ective because of the strength
and character of the man who used it. When it was
thrown away, it might have been used by another man to
murder a friend, but Samson could not have been blamed
because a murderous man used the weapon he had shown
to be effective. It is sufficient to show that the National

300

League and its leaders have denounced crime, have
prohibited outrage, and have endeavoured to lead the
people from the wild and wicked methods of force into
paths- more in consonance with present day light and
leading.

Less Outrage where the National League Prevails.

It is surely worthy of note that the country where
moonlight-raiding, and outrage are most prevalent is the
one where the National League has been restrained by the
action of the prelacy, and where the people are thrown
on their own unaided resources. But serious crime in
Ireland is trivial as compared with England, and much of
that to which publicity is given in English papers has been
manufactured by ingenious suppliers of public news.
Outrages solemnly entered in police reports and credited
to Ireland are passed over in England as boyish freaks.
Who puts down a broken window as an outrage, or a gate
thrown off its hinges as a reason for more stringent police
supervision in England ? Yet the reports of Irish out-
rages, ordered by Parliament and duly supplied from police
reports, have these things seriously stated as outrages. In
consequence, Ireland has been looked upon as a land of
outrage, and many persons are gullible enough to believe
anything bad of the Irish, and to interpret any statement
to their discredit.

It is said of a candidate who was defeated at Youghal,
that shortly after his defeat he met with a serious accident
in the hunting field. On coming to England he accidently
came into contact with a witty friend who jocularly intro-
duced him, bandaged and bruised as he was, to a gentle-
man near as the " beaten candidate from Youghal." The
gentleman at once conceived the idea that the physical

301

injuries so apparent were the result of the beating which
had been inflicted upon him at Youghal, and he cried,
" Good heavens — what savages ! "

That law and its administration have been brought
into contempt, and that criminals have been sympathised
with is well known ; but the law which is unjust and
partial, and is administered with alternate severity and
weakness, merits contempt. To free it from its stigma is
the best way of making it respected and effective.

Even the sacred books are sometimes read in the
light of modern history, and the deeds of men at the
present are compared with the acts of Bible patriots. Sir
Francis Doyle tells a capital story of Sir Robert Peel. He
was, when Irish Secretary, examining a national school in
Ireland, and putting questions on the Old Testament.
*' Tell me," he said, " what was the reason why Moses left
the land of Egypt ? " The older boys passed it, but a
little boy on the back seats held out his hand, with " I
know, yer honour!" " Come to the front and tell us all
about it," said Sir Robert Peel. The boy obeyed, and,
when he got to the front, he looked Sir Robert full in the
face, and explained the matter thus : ** Please, yer honour,
he shot a Peeler ! " Paddy had merely Hibernicised the
land of Egypt, and had classed Moses with the outlaws
who had escaped to America. It must have been amusing
as well as instructive to Sir Robert Peel to hear the
policeman called after him and identified with the slain
Egyptian.

Religious Objections.

The religious objections to Home Rule are founded
upon the supposition that to give the people of Ireland

302

political power will place them in the hands of the priest-
hood, and that, therefore, they will become the mere
tools of Ultramontanism. No cry was louder in Tory
assemblies, or was more cheered when uttered by Unionist
speakers, than that " Home Rule meant Rome Rule."
That there are to be found Ultramontanists in national
circles may be admitted. To some, doubtless the Pope of
Rome is the only lawful ruler, and the Vatican is the only
true seat of government. But that these will ever be able
to shape and direct the policy of the nation is as
preposterous as to suppose that the Archbishop of
Canterbury can adopt the policy of the prelate whom
he once denominated the *' martyred Laud." The
action of the Nationalist leaders, and the policy of the
party, have taken all the strength out of this objection.
Mr. T. M. Healy makes light of the charge that if Home
Rule were granted the Catholics would oppress the
Protestants.

Daniel O'Connell, while yet the Protestant Parlia-
ment survived, thus spoke at a meeting of Catholics held
in Dublin in 1799, to protest against the Union: — "It
is my sentiment, and I am satisfied that it is the sentiment
not only of every gentleman who now hears me, but of the
Catholic people of Ireland, that if our opposition to this
inglorious, insulting, and hated measure of Union were to
draw down upon us the revival of the Penal Laws, we
would boldly meet a proscription and oppression which
would be the testimony of our virtue, and sooner throw
ourselves once more on the mercy of our Protestant
brethren, than give our consent to the political murder of
our country. Yes, I know — I do know — that, although
exclusive advantages may be ambiguously held forth to the
Irish Catholic to seduce him from the sacred duty which

$0$

he owes his coantry — I know that the Catholics of Ireland
still remember that they have a country, and that they will
never accept of any advantages as a sect, which would
debase and destroy them as a people."

*" After the passing of the Emancipation Act of 1829,
O'Connell declared in the same spirit, that he would con-
sent to the re-enactment of the Penal Laws against his
co-religionists, provided he could get back the Protestant
Parliament of Ireland. The breadth and loftiness of such
declarations contrast strangely with the petty apprehen-
sions of the persecutors. O'Connell's solicitude for the
welfare and dignity of a/l Ireland, as compared with the
pseudo-Radical cry for a cordon sanitaire round the Belfast
district, to separate it from the rest of the country, recalls
the story of the women who pleaded before Solomon, and
the answer the true mother gave to the judgment which
would have severed her child in two."

**But the Catholics forsooth would oppress the Protes-
tants ! Where is the evidence for this ? Living at a time
when every paltry outrage is magnified by telegraph for the
English market, has there been any attempt made even by
the purveyors of London sensation, to show that the
half million Protestants outside Ulster have anywhere
been constrained or assailed on account of their religion }
Is there a board of guardians in the most Catholic districts
that does not pay a Protestant chaplain a salary to minister
to the spiritual wants of the handful of Protestant paupers
in their workhouses — sometimes hardly numbering half a
dozen, unmindful of the example given in places like
Donegal where, in spite of constant protests in Parlia-
ment, and official reproofs from the Local Government

* Mr. T. M. Healy— " A Word for Ireland," pages 153-4-

3^4

Board, not only will no priest be paid to take spiritual
charge of the Catholics, who form the vast majority of the
paupers, but the " loyalists " refuse to give three or four
pounds a year to a Catholic catechist to teach the children
the Christian doctrine. (See Hansard, passim, 1883 to
1886). In Belfast or in Derry there is no Catholic in the
Corporation, or employed by it, although the Catholics of
Belfast number 60,000, and they are the majority of the
population in Derry. Wherever religious oppression is prac-
tised in Ireland, there the Catholics are the minority, and
the religious bogey will be buried the moment the land-
lords have no longer any interest in keeping the people
divided."

Dr. Wylie's Views.

Dr. Wylie, the author of the History of Protestantism,
writes on this subject in a pamphlet called ''Which Sover-
eign, Queen Victoria or the Pope ? " This book has been
sent gratuitously to ministers of religion. In its pages the
learned Doctor argues that English policy is in the wrong,
inasmuch as it has given citizenship and political power
to Catholics. Pointing out that the Revolution provided
for a Protestant Throne and a Protestant Legislature, he
says : '* The second part of the Revolution Settlement
was a Protestant Legislature."

9. The men of the Revolution said : " That the
subjects of Britain shall be governed by British law —
law made on the soil of Britain ; law inspired by the
genius of British liberty, and conservative of those
rights and liberties which had been won in the long
struggle oftwo centuries which had just come to an end."
The men of the Romish communion are in no
proper sense citizens of this country. They are
subjects of a foreign prince ; to whom, without con-

305

cealment, their allegiance is given, and by whom their
conscience is absolutely ruled. Every bishop takes a
feudal oath to obey the Pope in all things, and fight
against his enemies ; and that obligation runs down
through the priest to the humblest member of their
community, linking them into a great feudal con-
federacy, whose throne is in the Vatican, and whose
country is " the Church." There is no sounder, and
certainly no more important principle in national
jurisprudence than this — that only the citizens of a
country are entitled to take part in framing the laws
by which it is to be governed. Self-preservation is
the first law of States as of individuals : and what
could be a more glaring violation of that law than to
commit the government of a country into the hands
of those who are aliens to it, and, it may be, its
bitterest enemies ? Such a thing would be political
suicide.

10. Guided by these considerations — the maxims
of sound jurisprudence, enforced by recent and dire
experience — the men of the Revolution said we must
restrict the task of legislating for the country to the
citizens of the country : that is, to Protestants. We
extend the protection of our law to all who live on
our soil. We shall guard the persons and the
property, the liberty and the lives of Romanists, as
sacredly as we do the lives and property of Protes-
tants ; but to admit the former to the making of our
laws is, in the first place, not one of their natural
rights : and, in the second place, they have shut
themselves out of this privilege by the position in
which they have chosen to place themselves. The
making of laws is a right which no one can claim,

3o6

unless he is a citizen and a subject — and to admit
those who are neither to this power would be simply
to place the neck of the true citizen under a foreign
authority : it would be to introduce tryanny into the
State ; and so gradually to demoralize, and in the end
destroy it.

One maybe pardoned if he should ask is this religious
mania, or has much learning driven the Doctor mad. That
these words are not the words of soberness may be averred,
though one cannot but believe that to the author they are
true. But is this worship of dogma and church and a
privileged electorate in harmony with the teaching of Him
who uttered the Beatitudes and said " Do unto others as
ye would that they should do unto you." Dr. Wylie seems
afraid lest Catholicism should do with Protestantism what
he freely advocates Protestants to do with Catholics.
Can bigotry and love of sectarianism blind any more than
to make a man oblivious of the equal claims of those who
perform the duties and maintain the responsibilities of
citizenship equally with himself } To tax Catholics and
demand public services from them and then to deny to
them political rights because they differently interpret
God's word from their fellow-electors, would be to turn
the clock back and make England less advanced and free
than any nation in Europe, and it is an infringement on that
right of private judgment which is regarded as a precious
heirloom of the Reformers. Catholics may be trusted as
soldiers, sailors, and merchants to deal honestly in com-
mercial life, but must not be trusted as voters ! As guides
they may be trusted, as bakers and butchers they may be
relied on to supply wholesome food to Protestants, who
may thus trust them with their lives, but must not trust
them with their liberties !

30?

We may consider not only the public teaching of
Home Rulers, but also the practice of Catholics and the
opinions of Protestants who live in districts where
Catholicism is dominant. Daniel O'Connell said :—
** As much theology as you please from Rome, but no
politics. We are Roman Catholics, but not servants of
Rome." The Catholics of Ireland have never persecuted
the Protestants. Mr. Lecky says : — '* The Irish have not
generally been an intolerant or persecuting people.
During the atrocious persecutions of Mary, the English
Protestants were totally unmolested in Ireland. The
massacre of Protestants in 1642 was so little due to
religious causes that the only Englishman of eminence
who was treated by the rebels with reverence and care was
Bishop Bedell, who was one of the most energetic Protes-
tants of his age, and the first Irish bishop who endeavoured
to proselytise among the Catholics."

Lord Spencer, who during his Lord-Lieutenancy in
Ireland, had many opportunities of studying the relations of
Catholics and Protestants, has stated that he does not
apprehend any attempt on the part of the Catholics to
oppress the Protestants.

If the People are Led by the Priests, who
ARE TO Blame ?

If in many instances the People of Ireland have
accepted the guidance of the priests, who are to blame so
much as Orangemen, English electors, and lethargic, or
unsympathetic Protestant ministers ? The people kept
ignorant by law, and impoverished by law, were obliged to
appeal to the clergy for mediation and aid in all their
struggles. It is to the credit, and not discredit, of the
Catholic clergy that they have not left the people to

3o8

struggle unaided. While the gentry of Ireland, the
natural leaders of the people, failed O'Connell and Butt
in the time of need, the priests stood by them and
used their influence in securing for the people greater
privileges. Had it not been for them, in most country
districts, remote from railway communication and the
centres of population, the peasantry would have been
absolutely at the mercy of landlords and agents, inflamed
by greed and passion. What the motives of the clergy were
it is not for me to say. No speaker or writer can tread on
more dangerous ground than when he attempts to impugn
the motives of public teachers and leaders of political
and religious thought and life.

Dr. Macaulay says : " The oppression of the poor
Irish, both by the Imperial Government and by the
English possessors of the island, was as sore as was ever
borne by any conquered country. In their adversity they
found in the Roman Catholic Priests their nearest advisers
and comforters, and it is not surprising that the faith of
Romanism has thus become associated with the national
spirit. The rulers of the Romish Church are clever in
taking advantage of this feeling, and our rulers in the
State are led to suppose that Romanism is the one essen-
tial element in the " national " policy. But some of the
chief leaders in the Irish National Party have been
Protestants."*

Professor Drummond's Visit to Ireland.

Professor Drummond, the able author of "Natural
Law in the Spiritual Realm," has paid a visit to Ireland,
and has given to his countrymen the benefits of his obser-
vation. Speaking at a meeting in the Ayr town in

=*= "Macaulay's Ireland in 1872," page 86.

support of the candidature of Captain Sinclair, the
Liberal candidate, Professor Drummond, who was received
with loud cheers, said—'* I take the heartiness of that
reception as a tribute to this cause and not to myself,
because I am entirely unknown — (cries of *' No, no") —
upon a political platform. This is the first time I ever
stood on a political platform. It is the first time in my
life I ever attended a political meeting — at least with one
or two exceptions — during the present campaign, and I am
not going to trouble you with a political speech. You say
a man who has never been at a political meeting has no
business to trouble an audience, but although I have no
claim to talk to you about a political question of which I
am very ignorant, I have some claim to back my friend, Mr.
Sinclair, in the noble fight he has begun here to-night,
and in which I hope he will be successful (applause). I
have given the subject of Home Rule careful considera-
tion for many weeks past, and I would just like to tell a
number of men who I am sure are at heart with us, but
who are not going in for Home Rule, that if they think a
little more about the question they will find themselves
gradually able to go the whole length with us, and voting
for Mr. Gladstone in this contest (applause). I went to
Ireland about two months ago dead against Home Rule,
and I was determined not to be converted to Home Rule.
(Laughter). I studied the country, its history politically
and socially, and I found myself gradually shut up more
and more to the fact that there was no alternative. The thing
that staggers one at the firstis the largeness of the question,
and the second the splendid generosity of the means to be
employed (applause). The mind cannot grasp its influence
at once, but when he sees the thing as a whole, the men
who have framed that measure have known the end from

the beginning, have looked at it in its length and breadth
(applause). We only see the little details, but it is when
you put all things together and look upon them on the whole,
you see the splendid harmony of this measure (applause).
And when one comes to look into the hearts of the people
one sees the generosity of the spirit which inspired this
measure, and respects the men who framed it and under-
stands their eagerness to have it carried out (Cheers). I
don't think we have the least idea of the urgency of this
question, much as we know about it. We do not realise
that Ireland at this moment is in a state of rebellion. It
is a rebellion fortunately without bloodshed, but it is a
genuine rebellion. I saw to-day a sight in Glasgow, a
sight I have never seen in this country before, and which
I never hope to see again. I saw a gentleman driven
through the streets in a carriage with mounted policemen
guarding him on both sides, in front, and behind. That
gentleman was Lord Hartington (hisses and cheers). I
must say I blushed for my fellow-subjects in Ireland when
I saw that sight — one of my fellow-countrymen going
through our city with the police guarding him on all sides.
That helps me to see the urgency of this question. I was
told by an inspector of constabulary in Calton that he had
under him at the present moment 350 policemen and
detectives upon protection duty alone. Protection means
standing between our fellow-subjects and assassination,
mutilation, and robbery — 350 policemen standing between
these men and death. Give the screw one more turn, and
what would happen to those men who have been watched
night and day. It only requires a spark to make that
revolution which is at present passive — and you know why
it is passive — to make the whole country explode. It is
confessed in Ireland that the British Government is not

311

the governing power in Ireland. That is confessec^j.
every Government official. The reins are held entirely l
the Nationalist party. When one sees that, the only thing
to do is to give them what they want, or apply coercion in
a form that no country would tolerate. It is to save the
Irish people from bloodshed, to allay the passions of that
great nation that we want to give them this generous and
large policy, which they are generous enough to respond
to. I saw the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland driving to Cork
some little time ago, I saw the people turn out almost to a
man, and I saw the splendid enthusiasm with which they
greeted him (applause). Lord and Lady Aberdeen have
done more for Ireland — interpreting the spirit of this
measure— than all the Acts that have been passed during
this century. For the Irish people feel they are not
connected with England by the iron hand but by the
heart, and it is the spirit of this act which is beginning to
tell upon the country, and which is leading men to a higher
influence, and which shows them that we want to do what
we can to bring in some measure of Home Rule immedi-
ately without tampering with the largeness and genuine
liberality of the spirit in which we are giving (applause).
We must give it at once, and give it in its fulness
(applause). I would like to say before sitting down —
(cheers) — that there was one strong difficulty in my mind
about Home Rule before I came converted to it. I refer
to the fear that the granting of Home Rule to Ireland
would discourage the Protestant religion, especially in
Ulster. Throughout the country that was a genuine fear
in many minds. The key to the heart of a Scotch con-
stituency is through that deepest part of it, its religious
nature, and I am quite sure a great many people have
considerable fears and scruples about granting this to

Ireland in case the Roman Catholics should come to
stamp out the Protestant religion. That is an entirely
groundless fear — (cheers) — and for very many reasons.
For one thing, the facts we have been told about it are
grossly exaggerated. We have been told that the Presby-
terians are up in arms against this bill. That was not
true. There are at present three Presbyterian ministers in
Cork, the heart of the Roman Catholic country, and two
of them are warm Home Rulers. One of these men is
the oldest Presbyterian minister in Ireland, and has been
thirty-eight years in the South of Ireland. It happens
that I can produce a sentence or two written by this
gentleman, whose name is Matthew Kerr. He says:^* I
claim to have some right to speak upon this question. I
have not taken up this position to-day or yesterday. All
my ministerial life has been spent in the west and south.
I can fairly say I have come into closer contact with the
Roman Catholic people in Ireland than perhaps any
minister of our church. And after this experience,
spreading over a period of thirty-eight years, I declare
with all my heart that I am ready to entrust my civil and
religious liberty to the Irish people, with the fullest con-
viction that the trust will be safe in their keeping' (cheers).
I may add a second argument in regard to that. So far
from the Roman Catholic hierarchy being anxious for
Home Rule, as many of you know, they have gone into
it at the last moment with a very sad heart, because it was
the teaching of history that whenever a people got political
freedom the Roman Catholic Church went to the wall.
So much has that fear been felt that Cardinal Cullen issued
a tractate addressed to Roman Catholics, urging them
to vote against this movement because their Church was in
danger through it. This is the greatest blow the Roman

Catholic Church has ever had offered it in Ireland for
centuries, the reason being, as I have stated, that it is the
teaching of history that whenever a nation got political
freedom the Roman Catholic Church began to wane. Let
them look at Italy ; the influence of the Church there is
waning. Let them look at Belgium. These are facts, and
if I were a Roman Catholic I would be very much afraid.
It is not a priest question- The priests at this moment
are not leading the people, but the people are leading the
priests, and the priests have to give in to them. I do not
say this because I am a Protestant. I don't want to vex
any Roman Catholic present. I bring up these facts to
refute the false charge that this bill is going to damage the
spirit of Christianity in the country. It will make a
thousand new openings. Mr. Gladstone has spoken about
this measure as being not a method or a bill, but a prin-
ciple. I would speak of it in even stronger language — it
is a treaty of peace (applause). We could afford to do
without Ireland ; it could not afford to do without us.
That is the answer to the cry of separation. We want to
exchange this artificial union for a real welding of the
nation's hearts together (applause). I don't think for a
moment that this bill will settle all the woes and difficul-
ties in Ireland or redress all the wrongs of her people. It
will be a long day before that is done, and it will take
many a long year to do it. It is not a political solution.
It is not a social nor a religious solution, but it is the first
step to a political solution. There cannot be any false
step, because there is no alternative. Our friends are
asking on a hundred platforms what Mr. Gladstone would
give in place of Home Rule. The question really is what
our friends have to offer in its place ? I do not think any
one present will have the least hesitation in putting him-

314

self into the hands of that great man who had led this
party so long (loud applause). I may be pardoned in
Captain Sinclair's presence in saying that if you, by your
votes, send him into Parliament, you will send in a man of
whom you will be proud (loud cheers)."*

Dr. Maginn's Letter to Lord Stanley.

Dr. Maginn, Bishop of Derry, in 1847 wrote to the
Lord Stanley of his day, in answer to the argument that
the law was sacred and ought not to be infringed : — f

Permit me, my Lord, to suppose a case. It is hardly a possible
case, to be sure, for your native country would not endure it for one
day. Still, let me suppose that the landlords in England were, with
a few honourable exceptions, selfish, grasping, cruel, tyrannical —
that they had made for themselves a code of laws — a code that
made them irresponsible, in their own minds, to God or man. That
by these laws they made England desolate, scattered the English
people, and made them wanderers over the earth ; left one-third of
your ocean isle uncultivated, the other two-thirds comparatively
unproductive. Let me suppose again that by these laws they made
the English nation a beggar in rags at every gate in Christendom —
that with them they were enable to exterminate hundreds of
thousands of the English people from the homesteads of their
fathers, levelling their cabins to the earth and casting them out on
a merciless world to die in ditches to make room for the ox, the ass,
the goat, and the sheep, thereby preferring the most stupid of the
brute creation to him whom the God of heaven made little less than
the angels. Let me suppose again that these laws, having full sway
for centuries in England, made more widows and orphans, produced
more hardships, heart-burning, agonies of soul and writhings of
body, caused more tears to be shed and more premature deaths — a
greater destruction in fine of human life than the eleven persecutions
decreed by the Pagan Emperors of Rome. I ask you, my Lord, in
what terms would you speak of those laws ? Would the parsons of
England be Christian ministers if they gave their support to a code

* Newspaper Report. + Quoted in Freeman's Journal.

5*5

■which worked such ruin ? Would they not be worse than the
apostate priests of the cruel Jezabel, if folding their arms in silence,
they looked with cold indifference on their hearers crushed to powder
beneath the wheels of this Moloch ? But what would they be— they,
the ministers of the God of Mercy ; what name would be too bad
for them if, instead of siding with their suffering people, they raised
their voices to applaud the cause and cheer on the abettors of this
universal ruin ? We know how those who love their people feel ; we
know how a Moses, a Jeremiah, a David felt. We know how a
Matthias felt when his beloved Judea was beneath the hoof of the
truculent Antiochus. We know how the Redeemer felt when he
looked on the crowd hungering in the wilderness, and we also know
the cry from under the altar of God — " How long, O Lord, how
long? " All this ve know, and if the Irish priesthood have anything
to answer for to God, it is the tameness and the silence and the
patient submission with which most of them looked upon the wrongs,
the ruin of their country ; or for the gentle whispers they used when
their voices should have been as loud as the roar of the deep or as
the crash of the thunderstorm arousing, awakening the world to
humanity, outraged in the persons of their flocks, and thereby
shaming their persecutors into mercy.

I am inclined to the opinion, that Mr, Drummond's
words, in relation to the priests and the people, have much
truth in them, but men like Dr. Maginn may be above
the suspicion of meanness and mere ecclesiastical expedi-
ency. There are numbers of patriotic priests in Ireland
who have been reared among the suffering peasantry, and
have shared in their hardships. These men are sons of
tenants, and have received a meagre education in village
schools. After qualifying as teachers, they have passed
into the priesthood through the college at Maynooth.
They have much sympathy with Irish aspirations, and little
regard for Ultramontanist policy. If this were not so,
surely history points out this lesson, that when the claims
of the church interfere with individual liberties and rights,

3'6

and arrogantly invade the domain of civil and political
duty, the shock of conflict between the laity and the clergy
is not far oif, and the latter are they who must succumb.
If this has been so in the mirk of the past, without news-
papers, education, postal system, and railways, what will it
be to-day, with the light of progress and the publicity
secured by modern improvements. Religious bitterness
on the part of Catholics in Ireland does not need to be
feared in the light of her history. Less of it can be found
than in any civilized land. Protestant Volunteers in 1782
favoured the emancipation of Catholics, fifty years before
the British Parliament granted it.

The movements of freedom in Ireland have been led
by Catholics and Protestants, working amicably together.
The insurrection of united Irishmen in 1798, and the
movement under Daniel O'Connell, were largely aided
by Protestants. Messrs. Butt, Shaw, and Parnell have
been Protestants. Mr. Parnell was elected as mem-
ber for Cork, though opposed by a Catholic
backed up by bishops and priests. When Mr. Parnell's
testimonial was objected to by the Vatican, it immediately
bounded up to a large sum of money, the people thereby
showing that in political matters they recognised Mr.
Parnell, and not the Pope, as their leader. It is well
known and vouched for by Protestant members in the
House of Commons, that in Catholic constituencies a
Protestant often finds greater favour as Parliamentary
candidate than a Catholic, and is usually chosen in pre-
ference when other claims are equal. An Englishman,
Mr. Whitworth, of Drogheda, said in referring to a
false rumour of an intended massacre of Protestants, that
he would rather entrust the safety of himself and his
family to the Catholics at Drogheda, than to the Orange-

31?

men of the north. Many others are of the same opinion.
I have met some Protestants living in districts almost
exclusively Catholic, who have spoken in glowing terms of
their tolerance, friendship, and fidelity. They have had
no difficulty with their Catholic neighbours, and there is a
considerable minority of these Protestants who are enthusi-
astic supporters of a Home Rule policy. The Protestant Home
Rule Association is not the only evidence of this. There
is a mass of personal testimony to be obtained, in an in-
structive pamplet issued by Mr. A. Webb, of Dublin. In
towns where Catholics have control, Protestants are freely
elected to municipal position. They are made mayors,
high sheriffs, corporation officers. But not only in Belfast
and Derry, in other Protestant towns also Catholics are
kept out of public offices, and, although they compose a
large proportion of the population and ratepayers, they
are practically without representation, and are at the
mercy of bigoted and illiberal Orangemen.

EXCLUSIVENESS OF PROTESTANTS.

Mr. Edward Harvey, in a letter which appeared in
a northern paper, says : —

Dear Sir, — Yesterday Mr. John Allingham, an Ulster Protes-
tant, was, by a unanimous vote of the Corporation, re-elected Mayor
of the Catholic City of Waterford, he having already served eleven
months of his first year of mayoralty.

In the three more southern and Catholic provinces of Ireland
it was, until a few years ago, customary for towns, about nine-tenths
of whose inhabitants (as in the case of Waterford) are Catholics, to
elect every second or third year a Protestant Tory as Mayor, or, in
the case of Dublin, as Lord Mayor. This was, as I think you will
admit, a somewhat remarkable instance of the absence of religious
and political intolerance amongst a people who are not uncommonly
spoken of by their enemies as would-be-persecutors. It is, perhaps,
still more remarkable in the face of the fact that Irish Protestants

3i8

have never shown the same degree of toleration towards their
Catholic neighbours. Thus, in the ultra Tory and Protestant town
of Belfast, which had in 1881 some 60,000 Catholic inhabitants out
of a total of 208,000, there is not, and never, to the best of my
knowledge, has been a single Catholic member of the Corporation,
not to speak of a Mayor. Not only is this so, but, in the employ-
ment of Belfast Corporation, unless things have altered lately, there
is not a single Catholic, with the exception of a cattle inspector, who
is not appointed by the Corporation, but by Government. This
remarkable instance of religious intolerance contrasts strongly with
the case of Dublin Corporation, which, although mainly Catholic
(as is Dublin City), employs many Protestant officials, and has had
numerous Protestant (and Tory) Lord Mayors.

The case of Londonderry is, in some respects, even more re-
markable than that of Belfast. In 1881 the population of Derry
consisted of 16,000 Catholics and 12,400 Protestants; total, 28,400.
Yet to the best of my knowledge, there are not more than two or
three, if so many, Catholic members of Derry Corporation, and such
a thing as a Catholic Mayor of Derry has not been heard of since
the reign of James II., the last Catholic King of Ireland. The
reason why a minority of Protestants is enabled to elect a large
majority of the Corporation in Derry is that there, as in all other
Irish towns and cities, the high Irish Municipal Franchise limited to
men only, of a /lo valuation, equal to £iy rental in Ireland, or say to
a /■20 or £25 rental in England, excludes the great bulk of the
Catholic house holders, who are as a body, much poorer than the
Protestants. Contrast this with the state of affairs in British towns,
where every householder, male or female, who has resided a year in
one house, is entitled to the Municipal Franchise.

Contrast also, the toleration shown by Irish Catholics to their
Protestant fellow-countrymen with the attitude of British Protes-
tants towards British Catholics. How many British Catholic
Mayors, or Provosts, or M.P.'s, are, or ever have been, elected for
hundreds of years past ? I know of only one British Catholic M.P.
in the present House of Commons, and I suppose the Catholic
Mayors and Provosts in Great Britain do not number more than two
or three, if, indeed, there are any such in existence.

3^Q
Views of Irish Leaders.

John Mitchell wrote in a New York Paper as follows,
in reply to a statement of Cardinal Cullen's that *'the
nationality of Ireland means simply the Catholic Church,"
** 'the nationality of Ireland simply the Catholic Church!'
We know not what Judge Keogh may say to this
statement, but we never heard of the fact before. There
has been a kind of idea prevailing, that Grattan, and Lord
Edward Fitzgerald, that Tone and the Emmets, and Davis
and O'Brien, were advocates of Irish nationality, though
they had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It has
even been thought that the Presbyterian clergyman, who
was hanged as a united Irishman in 1798 was a better
Irishman than Dr. Troy, this cardinal's predecessor."

Thomas Francis Meagher was cheered to the echo,
when he gave public utteranceto the following sentiments: —
** A spirit of brotherhood is abroad, old antipathies are
losing ground, traditional distinctions of sect and
party are now being effaced. Irrespective of descent or
creed, we begin at last to appreciate the abilities and
virtues of all our fellow-countrymen. We now look into
history with the generous pride of the nationalist, not with
the cramped prejudice of the partisan. We do homage to
Irish valour, whether it conquers on the walls of Derry,
or capitulates with honour before the ramparts of
Limerick. We award the laurel to Irish genius, whether
it has lit its flame from within the walls of Old Trinity, or
drawn its inspiration from the sanctuary of St. Omer's.
* We must tolerate each other,' said Henry Grattan, he
whose eloquence was the very music of freedom, *we
must tolerate each other, or we must tolerate the common
enemy.' After years of social disorder, years of detestable

320

recrimination between factions and provinces and creeds,
we are on the march to freedom. Let us sustain a firm,
gallant, and courteous bearing, let us avoid all offence to
those who pass us by ; and by rude affronts let us not drive
still further from our ranks those who at present decline to
join. An honourable forbearance towards those who
censure us, a generous respect toward those who differ from
us, will do much to diminish the diffiQulties that inpede our
progress. Let us cherish, and upon every occasion mani-
fest an anxiety for the preservation of the rights of all our
fellow-countrymen — their rights as citizens, their muni-
cipal rights, the privileges which their rank in society has
given them, the position which their wealth has purchased,
or their education has conferred ; and we will in time, and
before long, efface the impression that we seek for a repeal
with a view to crush those rights, to injure property, or
erect a church ascendancy."

Meagher's great teacher — Daniel O'Connell — had
previously given utterance to similar sentiments. He said :
" The real obstacle to the repeal of the Union is appre-
hension that it would be followed by religious intolerance
and sectarian animosity. Men of Ireland, your duty is
to conduct yourselves so as to obliberate every such
apprehension. Exert yourselves unremittingly to exhibit
kindliness, affection, conciliation, cordiality, towards
persons of all sects, and of every persuasion. Let us
leave the settlement of our religious differences to grace ,
to piety, to the mercies of God, to the merits of our ador-
able Redeemer. Irishmen, the more charity you display,
the more christian virtues you practise, the more shall you
advance the temporal interests and the civil liberties of
your native land. Patriotism and religion run in the same
channel."

32i

Thomas Davis, the representative ttiati of the
Nationalist movement, impressed his individuality upon
the party, and is lovingly remembered to-day by the men
whose heads have grown grey in the service of Ireland.
In ballads, historical and political, he endeavoured to stir
up the courage and energies of the people of Ireland.
One of the most popular of his songs contains the senti-
ments of Grattan, Meagher, and O'Connell : —

Rusty the swords our fathers unsheathed;
William and James are turned to clay ;
Long did we till the wrath they bequeathed,
Red was the crop and bitter the pay !

Freedom fled us !

Knaves misled us !
Under the feet of the foemen we lay ;

Riches and strength

We'll win them at length :
For Orange and Green will carry the day !

Landlords befooled us,

England ruled us,
Hounding our passions to make us their prey :

But in their spite

The Irish unite.
And Orange and Green will carry the day.

Fruitful our soil where honest men starve ;

Empty the mart and shipless the bay ;
Out of our want the oligarchs carve,
Foreigners fatten on our decay !
Disunited,
Therefore blighted.
Ruined and rent by the Englishman's sway ;
Party and creed
For once have agreed —
' Orange and Green will carry the day !

Boyne's old water,
Red with slaughter,
Now is as pure as an infant at play ;
So in our souls
Its history rolls,
And Orange and Green will carry the day.

322

The Papal Rescript and the Nationalist Reply.
If anything more than argument is needed to prove
the groundlessness of the fears entertained by timid Pro-
testants, the reception of the Papal Rescript is instructive.
The document supposed to condemn the methods of the
National Party, sent by the Pope to be read in the
churches of Ireland, was received with either coldness or
resentment. It found no favour with anyone, except per-
haps a few wealthy Catholics in England, and some wild
Orangemen of Ulster, who for once in their history saw
some good in the great ecclesiastic, whose home is amid the
seven hills. Whether theRescript had been inspired byEnglish
Catholics, acting as a go-between for the Tory Government,
is not a matter of much moment, but the huge greeting
given to it by Orangemen suggested that in the advocacy
of a political policy they, for the moment, were willing
to have a truce with Ultramontane authorities at Rome.
Archishop Walsh came forward to show the harmlessness
of the Rescript, and aided by other dignatories of the
church, he endeavoured to reassure indignant nationalists.
Priests and Bishops erected lightning conductors to lead
off the fiery current of Papal wrath, and the no less forky
and flashing element of patriotic indignation. Messrs.
Dillon, O'Brien, and Davitt, all of them faithful Catholics,
honoured by their clergy, spake out boldly and let the day-
light in upon the minds of Italian ecclesiastics, as well as
those of religious bigots who had parroted the cry —
" Home Rule means Rome Rule." These popular leaders
of Ireland, with vehemence and determination reiteratea
the old cry — ** no politics from Rome," and the people,
massed in large public assemblies showed their approval,
not of the cold Rescript, but of the warm, glowing patriotism
of the men who had caught the spirit of the Howards of

323

the time of the Spanish Armada. Mr. William O'Brien
crushingly pointed out to Cardinal Simeoni and the Pope,
that in condemning boycotting the church of Rome was
uttering a condemnation on its own actions. He showed
how that the Papal powers in the Vatican had boycotted the
Government of Italy, because Victor Emanuel had " land
grabbed " the territory of the former Papal States.

Mr. John Dillon, at Kilrush, said : — " On this
question of yielding obedience to the Court of Rome on
temporal matters we are not without a great and important
precedent. In the days of O'Connell the Court of Rome
and the Pope of that day thought proper to interfere in
Irish affairs on a very important matter indeed. The
English Government of that day desired to obtain the
power of preventing any man who was obnoxious to them
being created a bishop of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Court of Rome of that day issued a document pre-
cisely similar to the document we now have before us, in
which they recommended the Irish people to accept
Catholic Emancipation on those terms, and to allow the
British Government to have a veto on the appointments.
What did O'Connell do ? — and we have never been told
that O'Connell was a bad Catholic — O'Connell declared
that it was the doctrine of Catholics that while in spiritual
matters and on questions of conscience and religious duty
we were bound to accept the solemn teaching of the
Church of Rome, in temporal matters and questions of
public policy we were not bound to accept it. O'Connell
declared — ' I for my part am a good Catholic, but I never
will submit to the doctrine that the Pope or the Court of
Rome has power to rule me on temporal affairs.' It does
seem to me a curious thing that one of the great grounds
on which we decline — and I think justly decline — to be

324

ruled from Westminster is that we object, as every people
in the world who have ever tasted of liberty, or who have
any self-respect, object to be ruled by men in temporal
concerns who do not understand the circumstances under
which they live. And are we to be told that while we
struggle and make sacrifices, and have maintained for years
the desperate strife against a foreign rule at Westminster,
that we are to submit to or accept the foreign rule of a
number of Italians in Rome, no matter how holy they may
be ? It is a monstrous doctrine ; it is a doctrine which, I
venture to say, the authorities in Rome will never attempt
to maintain, and which, if they did attempt to maintain
to-morrow, the Irish race would stand up like one man and
refuse to submit to. No, the Irish people have shown,
as I contend, in the face of almost unparalleled difficulties
and sufferings and dangers, that the sacred cause of liberty
is as dear to them at least as to any other race of men who
inhabit this earth. They have shown that they will submit
to no foreign domination on the soil of Ireland. And
while we have shown in the past, and shall show in the
future, a devotion to the head of the Church, in whose
doctrines we have been reared and our fathers before us,
which will compare favourably with the devotion of any of
the Great Powers of Europe, or of our friends the English
Catholics, we will show also, I trust and believe, that we
know what liberty means, and we know how to draw the
distinction between devoted obedience to the Church in
spiritual matters and absolute independence of everybody
except the Irish people in temporal matters."

The Nationalists held a meeting of Catholic members
in Dublin, and issued a counter-manifesto to that of the
Pope ; in which, after combatting and condemning the
statements of the Rescript, they said in conclusion : —

325

6. That, while unreservedly acknowledging the spiritual juris-
diction of the Holy See, we, as guardians of those civil liberties
which our Catholic forefathers have resolutely defended, feel bound
solemnly to re-assert that Irish Catholics can recognise no right in
the Holy See to interfere with the Irish people in the management
of their political affairs.

A meeting in support of the action of the Irish
Parliamentary Party in reference to the Rescript was
held in Phoenix Park, Dublin. There was a very large
attendance of people. On the platform there were
present : — Messrs. T. Sexton, M.P., Lord Mayor of Dub-
lin ; T. Harrington, M.P., J. Dillon, M.P., Wm. O'Brien,
M.P., J. P. Clancy, M.P., J. E. Redmond, M.P., D.
Sheehy, M.P.. Crilly, M.P., Cox, M.P., M. J. Kenny,
M.P., D. Kenny, M.P., and others.— The Lord Mayor,
in opening tlie proceedings, said the duty cast upon them
was delicate, as well as honourable, and he felt it his duty
to remind them that while they were entitled to speak clearly
and act firmly in the assertion of their political rights, it
was their duty also not to forget for a single moment the
profound veneration which, as Catholics, they owed to the
Holy See. Irish Catholics were connected, for different pur-
poses, and in different ways, with two powers. By their free
consent they were linked in their spiritual affairs with the
Holy See, and against their will, for the purpose of
secular laws, to the Parliament of England. Their religion
was independent of England, and their politics were
independent of Rome, and they would as soon think of
taking their politics from the Palace by the Tiber, as their
religion from the Parliament of England. The following
resolution was moved : —

"That the citizens of Dublin, in public meeting assembled,
cordially endorse and adopt in their entirety the resolutions of the
Irish Catholic members of Parliament with reference to the late
circular of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, and respectfully
decline to recognise any right in the Holy See to interfere with the
Irish people in the management of Irish political affairs."

326

— Mr. Dillon, in supporting the motion, contended that
the Rescript had been conceived in ignorance, and without
full knowledge of the circumstances, and the sooner it
was withdrawn the better, — Mr. O'Brien said they had
enemies enough without receiving blows from hands from
which they least deserved it. It was cruel, unnatural, and
heart-breaking to Irish Catholics to think that the name of
Rome could be flung in their teeth by Mr. Balfour, when-
ever he struck down an Irish representative, and it was
maddening to think that every Irish rack-renter who
cleared a country side could flourish the Papal circular in
their faces as if it was a sherifl''s writ. While all the cen-
sures of Rome was reserved for the unhappy Irish people
fighting for their lives, there was not one word of censure
for the deeds and crimes of landlordism. In all the ages
of suffering of their people they neve? had been called
upon to give a higher proof of their faith, or to do a
nobler service to Catholicity, than they did that day in
declaring that the sacred name of Rome must be no
longer dragged through the mire of Dublin Castle. The
eff"ect of the circular was purely political, and it had en-
couraged Mr. Balfour and his hireling magistrates, to
hound down men like Mr. Dillon. Mr. J. E. Redmond
said, that if they had to acquiesce in this Roman interfer-
ence the English people would be absolute fools to give
them Home Rule, for it would be a mockery, a delusion,
and a danger. The resolution was passed with
acclamation.

Surely this ought to carry conviction to the minds of
Protestants that the Nationalists do not intend to allow the
Church to dominate the State in Ireland.

As a Protestant minister, I can scarcely be sus-
pected of sympathy with the Roman Catholic Church

3^7

as an Ecclesiastical system. Taught from my boy-
hood to look with suspicion upon Jesuitism, I must
stand excused if I am unable to approve the deeds
of the Catholic Church. Among the earliest books given
me to read were '* Foxe's Book of Martyrs " and a history
of Protestantism, and if anything more had been needed
to convince me of the iniquity of many Papal Pronounce-
ments, it was supplied in Mr. Gladstone's trenchant
criticism of the Vatican Decrees. For very many of the
priests and laity of the Catholic Church I have strong
respect and admiration. Their lives and work teach
many lessons to Protestant Ministers. Who are more
frequently found ministering to the sick, and
exercising care for the poor ? As men, as patriots, and
as Christian philanthropists, they may be honoured.
Their devotion to their flock, and their courage
in maintaining their principles put many Methodist
ministers" to the blush. Their creed I reject. Their
positions as ecclesiastics of an autocratic church system I
have no sympathy with. But to fear that Catholics will
betray their country's interests, and that the National
Leaders — like the pusillanimous coward King John— will
lay their symbol of authority at the feet of the Pope, is a
groundless fear. ^

The day has gone when men may be denounced in
doing good actions because they cannot conscientiously
use the Shibboleth of Leo XIV., of Archbishop Benson,
or the President of the Methodist Conference. It is
equally gone when men may surrender their political con-
victions and subjugate their country to the arbitrary edicts
of a dominant ecclesiastic, however powerful or holy he
may be. I am convinced that the experiences of the
people amid the wooded hills of Germany will be realised

328

in Ireland, and that freedom in political life will tend to
greater fellowship between men holding different tenets
and creeds.

Dr. Spence. Watson mentions Heidelberg in proof
of a similar statement made in the Newcastle Leader. He
says: — ** And the religious animosity which now divides
Ireland into two hostile camps will die in Ireland, as it has
died elsewhere, before the influence of common needs,
common hopes, common objects, in everyday life. This
will not be the work of a day nor a generation. Evil ways
are not easily destroyed. Mistakes there may be, difficul-
ties there will be, but difficulties as great have been over-
come in other lands. Few places leave the leisurely visi-
tor a more charming recollection than the little town of
Heidelburg. Lying between the Odenwald, through
which the lovely Bergstrasse makes its way, and the more
distant Schwarzwald, the Neckar winding among the
richly-wooded hills and through the town to the fertile
plain where the Rhine receives it, and far away the blue
Alsatian mountains closing in the view, it is difficult to
imagine a more peaceful scene. The vast ruin of the
castle, interesting beyond all others for its history, its
architectural variety and beauty, and the glory of its posi-
tion, rises proudly above the town, ^nd everywhere the
woods and meadows vie in quiet loveliness. Yet few
places have been so filled with the demon of religious
discord. Thrice was it burned and ten times besieged.
The town itself has been bombarded five times, twice laid
in ashes, and thrice taken by storm and given up to the
cruellest pillage. The town where Jerome of Prague, the
favourite companion and friend of John Huss, fixed his
famous theses to the door of St. Peter's Church, it was
Conspicuous above all in religious strife. Its sufferings

329

were from religious war. Even up to i 693 the cruelties
practised upon the Protestants of the town by the French
Troops were almost without parallel. And yet the last
time I visited it, the great church in which many Electors
and Counts of the Palatinate lie buried was divided down
the middle by a wooden partition, and the Protestants
worship quietly and peacefully at one side of the white-
washed deal boards, and the Catholics at the other.

' And I smiled, to think that God's greatness flows around
our incompletness,
Round our restlessness His rest.' "

Besides the above, the experiences of France, Italy,
Hungary, as well as Belgium, show that people who love
liberty, and after long struggles achieve it, will not lightly
surrender it at the dictates of a spiritual leader. The more
that freedom is cherished, and the aspirations and pride of
nationality are sustained in the hearts of patriots, the more
they are determined to look upon an ecclesiastic, in
politics, as having ng authority derived from his minis-
terial position, and only to be honoured, as other men are,
for his worth and work. To political leaders, and not
ecclesiastical ones, they look for direction in national
matters. And those who object to the interference of
cardinals and bishops in political matters, to be consistent,
should lift up their voice in loud condemnation of that
blot on the system of government, viz., the presence of a
number of bishops in the House of Lords, who have been
obstructors of humane and progressive legislation, and
who have never been elected by the constituencies.

Great Interests at Stake.
But to my mind, in this controversy, great
moral and spiritual interests are at stake, far greater

330

than the predominance of either Catholicism or
Protestantism. I can never be an apologist for
Roman Catholicism, its alliance with despots, its
ancient intolerance, and its restrictions of progress. It is
in religious matters what Conservatism is in political ones.
It is in itself, as an institution, the truest ally of Toryism.
It thrives on tradition and custom and dogma, and I repeat,
that while honouring Roman Catholics, and believing, as I
do, implicitly in their conscientiousness and honesty as
priests and laymen, I can never be an apologist for the
ecclesiastical system they sustain. Neither can I be a
blind advocate of Protestantism. Cruel deeds stain its
history. In many instances it has caught the spirit of the
old dispensation, and returned evil for evil, cruelty for
cruelty. If it has not had its inquisitions, it has often
pillioried and condemned men for their theological opinions,
and, metaphorically speaking, it has crucified them before
Church assemblies for their explanations and inter-
pretations of Holy Writ. I can never excuse the
intolerance, bigotry, and pharasaism of many churches
calling themselves Protestant. I protest against them, be
they Presbyterian, Methodist, or Ecclesiastical. If the
Protestant Church is to succeed, either in Ireland or
England, it can only do so by its superior manifestations
of charity and devotion, and its clearer and fuller exposi-
tion of truth, to those of rival systems of religion. It
must prove itself to be a Diviner faith than Catholicism by
the increased generosity and sacrifice of its votaries.
Elijah's test is the practical one to-day. " The God that
answereth by fire, let Him be God," he cried in the hearing
of Israel, and the people rolled back the reply " It is well
spoken." So, the religion that does the best for the world,
that ministers most fully to human sufi'ering, and relieves

33'

human need ; that satisfies the aspirations and convic-
tions of men most truly, and makes life a free and
earnest and noble thing; that gives the highest aid in
struggles, and comfort in sorrow ; that throws the truest
gleams athwart the darkness of life, lights up most
clearly the mysterious passage of death, and does the
most to make the future a real and inspiring power of
self-sacrifice and service and purity in the present, is the
one which is most worthy of the highest regard. And if
Protestants, forgetful of their origin and principles, fail,
and fall into the rear in this great work, and Catholics
come forward and lead men out of misery, and slavery, and
poverty, I, as a minister and a Protestant by training and
conviction, will say " God speed the earnest Christly
Catholic workers."

Something Greater than Church Systems.

For there is something greater than our Church
systems ; something nobler and grander than our creeds,
or sects, or Churches. Jesus Christ proclaimed himself to
be greater than the Temple ; and the Christlike spirit and
work are greater than ecclesiastical observances and
beliefs, either Catholic or Protestant. Truth is wider than
its expression. Divine life is more copious and clear than
it can be found represented in any human receptacle. Princi-
ples are more powerful and pure than their expression in any
dogma or any institution. God, the Almighty and Eternal
Father, cannot be shut up in any one church any more
than all the sunlight can be boxed up in anyone dwelling;
and justice, truth, love — the bases of the Gospel — are
broader than any of the faulty structures of Church
systems built upon them.

33'^

A Sunday in Dublin.

In 1887 I spent a Sunday in Dublin, and visited three
places of worship. In the morning I worshipped in the
Wesley Church, St. Stephen's Green. Instead of the
usual sermon, a noted and honoured minister spent an
hour in expounding the usages and rules of Methodism.
John Wesley was lauded. In the afternoon, I went with
devout worshippers to the Roman Catholic Cathedral, in
Marlborough Street. A sermon was preached on " The
respect and homage paid to the Virgin Mother of Christ,
by the Fathers of the church." In the evening, I listened
to a powerful and eloquent sermon on ** The rights of
private judgment," in the Protestant church, in Marl-
borough Street. Each sermon was excellent, but all were
disappointing. I felt assured that what the people needed
was not the proclamation of tenets peculiar to church
systems, but the announcement of a gospel of love and
forbearance, and kindness. Ireland can be saved, not by
a church system, but by the living Christ, and what she
needs in her religious life is the utterance of those great
religious facts found in the nature and government of the
Almighty — and expressed with beauty and pathos, and
power in the sublime and self-sacrificing life of Jesus of
Nazareth.

Conquered, but not Subdued.

The policy of England toward Ireland has prevented
and not aided this. Her patronage of one church, and
the fawning servility of that church to the State, have
hindered the true inculcation of Christian principles, and
have prevented the people from coming more closely
together in philanthropic and remedial work. The policy
in the past has been out of harmony with the moral

333

government of God, and the genius and teaching of the
gospel. And Ireland has resented this, though she has
been compelled to bow to it. There is a picture of two
boys — one of them strong and burly, and the other
delicate and weak. The strong boy holds the other
pinioned against the wall, wqth a bony fist clenched
close to his face. But the weaker one is looking
defiantly at his captor, and the expression of his face
speaks volumes as to what he would do in return had
he the strength. Underneath the picture are the words,
** conquered, but not subdued." There was room in the
street for them both to walk, had they not interfered with
each other. This is what we, as Englishmen, have done
in Ireland. The heart of Ireland has never been con-
quered, though she has been pinioned and manacled.
The Church of the Protestant minority has helped to hold
the Catholics pinned to the wall, and now she fears retalia-
tion. But there is room for them both, and patriotism
and true Christian principle are strong enough to keep
them from conflict.

The cry of many good men has been that the ten
commandments are still in force, and must not be broken
by Irishmen. I agree with this, and I say they must not
be broken by Englishmen either.

Mr. A. J. Balfour says that the followers of Mr.
Gladstone in this Home Rule movement have " made
short work of the eighth commandment, not to talk of the
ninth commandment. I do not see why they should
haggle over the sixth commandment." But is there not an
eleventh commandment, intended to be be binding not
only upon Liberals and Nationalists, but upon Mr.
Balfour and his followers ? Has not the law of love been
made the determining force of the Christian dispensation.^

334

Must not all the ten commandments therefore be inter-
preted in, the light of that commandment which embodies
in it the Spirit, not only of the Decalogue, but also of
Him who has made known the Father to the hearts and
minds of men, and has taught them that they are equal
citizens of life ?

Political Principles at Stake.

There are, moreover, great political principles involved
in this movement. Are the people to be trusted ? Is the
majority to rule ? Is the theory of government to
be "the greatest good of the greatest number"? Is
the government of the country to be conducted on
the most economical and acceptable lines ? These
are the principles for which the leaders of Liberalism in
the past have contended, and men are dastards to-day to
call themselves Liberals and yet to forsake the principles
of Liberalism, unless they show reason for retaining the
old name in association with a new creed, or unless they
can show that the principles have failed in their application,
or are not adapted to our modern life. The Right Hon.
Joseph Chamberlain says in a book called " Why I am
a Liberal ! " ** True Liberalism seeks constantly the
greatest happiness of the greatest number, and will attain
its end through the wise co-operation of a self-governed
commonwealth." Precisely ! that is what the Home Rule
followers of Mr. Gladstone say, and to which they try to
give effect.

The arguments in favour of Home Rule are grounded
on history. Experience shows that self-government has
been no toy in the hands of patriots and people, but a
power by which they have secured progress. Liberalism
loves to appeal to history, for it is the record of her

335

triumphs. When Liberals have failed to uphold their
principles, and have accepted Tory devices, histor}' records
their condemnation and failure. Home Rule is also
founded on the present needs of the people. Other
methods have failed, and the people ask that this one
shall be tried. It is further grounded on the fundamental
instincts of humanity, man's love of freedom, and his
impatience of despotic restraint.

Lord Hampden, who, as Speaker in the House of
Commons, was often brought into conflict with Nationalist
debaters, says : — *

It is true that I am a warm supporter of Mr. Gladstone's Irish
policy of extending self-government to Ireland upon a broad basis,
in accordance with the desire of an overwhelming majority of the
Irish people — that is, by the establishment of a single Legislative
Assembly for the control of affairs strictly Irish ; and, had I been
called upon to vote in the late division on the Government of
Ireland Bill, I should, without hesitation, have voted for the second
reading.

But the Bill requires amendment in several particulars ; and
no man, I apprehend, is more alive to this necessity than Mr. Glad-
stone himself, who has repeatedly appealed, but in vain, to the
constructive statesmanship of the House of Commons to assist him
in amending the Bill in Committee.

I cannot within the compass of a letter give in full the reasons
which have led me to the conclusion that the time has come to make
peace with Ireland upon terms which, while giving her the Union
she desires, will strengthen the Empire.

But among those reasons the following have had much weight
with me : —

" I. — The Union, as now established, has been only main-
tained through Coercion Acts repeatedly passed by Parliament
against the will of the Irish people ; and without Coercion such
a Union cannot hereafter be maintained.

* Letter to Daily News, June loth, 1886,

336

2. — The action of Mr. O'Connell and his followers, of Mr.
Smith O'Brien, of Mr. Butt, and, lastly, of Mr. Parnell, are
proofs, if any were wanting, of Irish disaffection as represented
in our House of Commons.

3. — Under the operation of Household Suffrage, and a
redistribution of political power recently conceded, that dis-
affection is manifested in larger measure in the present
Parliament. In former Parliaments the contingent of Irish
disaffection numbered about 40 members. It now numbers
86 members, and would probably increase should coercive laws
be again applied.

4. — It has been difficult, as I can testify, to carry on the
business of the House of Commons in the face of 40 disaffected
members ; it will be still more difficult to do so in the face of
the larger contingent of 86 disaffected members. It can be
done, no doubt ; for the House of Commons is, humanly
speaking, omnipotent. But this end can only be attained by
the exercise of coercive laws not only outside the House against
the people of Ireland, but also inside the House against their
members.

5. — If the Irish asked for concessions either unreasonable
or dangerous, of course they should be resisted. But there is
nothing unreasonable in their demand for self-government,
while any apprehended dangers may be guarded against.
My voice, therefore, is for making peace with them, taking such
securities as may be necessary for the integrity of the Empire.

The Government of Ireland Bill, although lost, is a message
of peace to Ireland, and may lead to a more hearty Union than that
against which the Irish have constantly protested throughout the
present century."

Mr. Disraeli's Views.
Earl Granville, in a speech delivered in London,
referred to a statement of Mr. Disraeli's as follows: — "Now
I want to know if any of you have forgotten what was the
description of an Irish policy given by Mr. Disraeli. In
1844 he thus described the Irish question. He said there

337

was a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, an alien
Church, and the weakest Executive Government in the
world. He said if gentlemen were to read of such a state
of things what would they say ? They would say revolu-
tion was the only remedy ; but the Irish cannot have a
revolution, because Ireland is connected with another and
a stronger country. Then he asked, what is the conse-
quence if the connection with England is the cause of this
state of things, if the connection of England prevents a
revolution, if a revolution is the only remedy, then England
finds itself in the odious position of being the cause of
Ireland's misery. He then asked what in these circum-
stances ought a Minister to do. He ought to try to effect
by policy what a revolution would do by force, and he
added that his belief was that if his recommendations were
followed the next fifty years would see Ireland prosperous
and with a contented peasantry. Now it is said that this
opinion was given in 1 844, a very long time ago ; but in
1 87 1, after twenty-seven years of accumulated addition of
political experience, Mr. Disraeli republished this speech,
and in a note he said, * In my historical conscience I
believe this sentiment was right.' Now, I venture to think
that this description is a necessary description of Mr.
Gladstone's policy and of the policy in which we believe.
It is a very remarkable coincidence that two men of such
different character, minds, and training as Mr. Disraeli and
Mr. Gladstone, each of them the undoubted head of his
party, concurred in their views as to the manner of dealing
with this great Irish question. Mr. Disraeli was prevented
by party obligations from attempting to carry out his
views, but we have now Mr. Gladstone, in undiminished
vigour, prepared to do so; and we hope that either by one
party or the other this question may be settled."

338

Mr. John Bright, in a speech to a deputation of
Cork Farmer's Club in 1866, said : — '* If you had a Parlia-
ment on College Green, clearly the tenantry of Ireland, with
the present feeling in Ireland, would be able to force that
Parliament to any measure of justice they named ; but as
you have to deal with a great Parliament sitting in
London, all the clamour you make, or the demands you
may urge from this side of the Channel, come with a very
feeble effect, especially as it can only be represented by
about one hundred members ; and of these it unfortun-
ately happens that a considerable number are not willing
to support the demands that are made. You have to wrest
your rights from a Parliament sitting in London, to which
you send 103 members ; perhaps half are not in favour of
your rights, and therefore the fifty who are so are lost in
the six hundred they find there, and the effort on the part
of your members to do anything is one of the most dis-
heartening things that any representative of the people

can have to do It is one of the most

difficult things in the world for fifty men acting among six
hundred men, some hundreds of miles from those whom
they represent, to work up any questions which may be
against the prejudiced sympathies of the six hundred
among whom they are acting."

Home Rule Sprung upon the Country.

Perhaps the argument which found most favour with
Dissentient Liberals was one based upon political expedi-
ency. It was stated that the measure was inopportune,
and that Mr. Gladstone had sprung his policy upon the
country.

Mr. T. P. O'Connor says in answer to this objec-
tion : — *" The charge is entirely untrue. He exhausted

* " Parnell Movement," Page 283.

339

every means to keep the question within the control of a
united Liberal Party, and to prevent its reference to the
tumultuous and passionate tribunal of the ballot-boxes.
In those clauses which provoked criticism he promised
amendment, and the whole Bill he undertook to postpone
till an autumn sitting, after the House had afhrmed the
principle of Home Rule by passing the second reading.
It was those who defeated the second reading of the Bill,
and so provoked the General Election, that must bear the
responsibility of all that has since happened. If the
second reading had been carried, the interval would have
been spent in the calm consideration of the various points
of difference among those who honestly accepted the
principle of an Irish Legislative Assembly, and in all
probability a compromise would have been arrived at.
There had not arisen at this period any of that fierce
bitterness which at present rages between the two sections
of the Liberal Party, and so the points of difference could
have been debated in calmness, and settled by mutual
concession."

Every great question comes suddenly to those who do
not acquaint themselves with the inner workings of life.
By the spread of moral conviction, and the enlargement
of opportunities, the greatest achievements of freedom
have been secured. But only those in whose hearts the con-
viction has obtained root, and made them ready to seize the
latent opportunities, are prepared for the proper time. Great
principles and policies root themselves firmly in the national
mind before they appear to the public gaze. The Protes-
tant Reformation was sprung upon Germany and the
World, but men now see that all the work of Martin
Luther would have failed had it not been that the prin-
ciples 6f Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome of Prague, and tlie

340

Lollards, had prepared the world in secret for the coming
strife, and that Luther did but express what thousands of
others had long felt. The principles of Fox, Grattan,
and O'Connell had been working for years in preparing
the people of England for a Home Rule Measure. But
none of them had done more than the writings and
utterances of John Bright. It is strange, that having led
them to the borders of the land, indicated he should now
refuse to pass in with them to its cherished possessions.

Tories and Unionists Considering Home Rule.

Mr. Gladstone was not alone in turning his attention
to the policy of allowing the Irish people to settle
questions affecting the internal government of the island.
All English statesmen had begun to see that this was a
question which must soon be met. Mr. Chamberlain
expressed his opinions openly and in private, and had
serious conferences with Mr. Parnell. The Tory party
were looking in the direction of Home Rule ; and Lord
Carnarvon,the Tory Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, also met Mr.
Parnell and conferred with him on the Irish demands,
expressing sympathy with the national aspirations. The
attitude of Lord Randolph Churchill, the leader of the
Tory Democratic party, we have already noticed. But Mr.
Gladstone saw that the time had come for more than an
academic discussion of the question, and that the make-
shift policy of office-seekers must be superseded by a
definite act of statesmanship. He saw also that to
further delay the matter would be to make the settlement
more difficult, and that the necessities of the people
demanded a broad measure of land reform, supported and
administered by a popular Government which the nation
would approve. Hence, he formulated his measures.

^4*

That it was not a plot deeply designed by one man is
clear from the fact that Mr. Gladstone, in a letter to Lord
Hartington, remonstrated with that nobleman for the views
he expressed on Irish questions while the matter was still
one to be finally considered by the Liberal leaders.

Sir Wm. Harcourt, Mr. John Morley, and others have
shown that they knew in what direction Mr. Gladstone's
statesmanship was tending ; and the hesitation of Mr.
Chamberlain to join the Cabinet is another proof that he
regarded Mr. Gladstone's views as in some sense antago-
nistic to his own. The lines of Mr. Gladstone's Home
Rule Bill must therefore have been sufficiently known to
the Liberal lieutenants to disprove the charge that it was
a mine quickly laid and suddenly exploded.

On the borders of Wales there is a willow tree aged
and decayed, but rooted in its decomposed heart there
stands a rose-bush, covered in summer with beautiful
roses. In the government of Ireland, so long unprosper-
ous, Mr. Gladstone endeavoured to drop the seeds of
Liberalism, viz., ** trust in the people," and ** government
of the people by the people, for the people," which should
call forth the best energies of Irishmen, and make them
blossom into a fruitful and law-abiding Democracy.

Self-Government Successful.

Mr. Gladstone's scheme was not without precedents.
It was not a quixotic and novel experiment. It had been
tried and had succeeded in the Colonies, and the number
of Home Rule Parliaments included in the British Empire
was a standing proof of the wisdom of the plan suggested
by the Liberal leader. The self-government of the
Colonies teaches a lesson which ought not to be dis-

regarded. In Canada, by placing the government of the
country as much as possible in the hands of the colonists,
the country's connexion with Britain was retained, while in
the United States of America, arbitrary government from
London brought on the riots of Boston, and the American
War of Independence. Lord Durham went out to
Canada, practically, as a dictator, but on viewing the
question more closely, he threw away his preconceived
ideas and inaugurated a plan of legislative independence.
Odium was poured upon him by the nobility. He was
hated and abused by the privileged, wealthy, and official
classes, and Mr. Justin McCarthy says : " he made a
country and he marred a career." Though he returned to
England discredited and disgraced, and though the
government refused to extend to him the usual honours
paid to Governors of the Colonies returning home, the
populace turned out in their thousands to cheer and
applaud this bold and radical reformer of Canadian
Government. The Times, even then true to its modern
characteristics, called him ** The Lord High Seditioner,"
but the people of Canada called him the Saviour of their
Country, and the salvation of that country places his
reputation to-day above the reach of scurrility and
abuse. History does justice to men who are leaders in
progressive movements, and are in advance of the people
of their times. In Canada, boycotting, intimidation,
rebellion, and rank treason were charged against the
people, in the letters of the Colonial authorities to the
Government in London. But when the power was
entrusted to them, these things ceased. It has been so in
other lands. The concession of autonomy pacified Hun-
gary, and made the connection between that country and
Austria more real and harmonious than it could have been

had the fatal policy of refusing legislative self-government
been continued. Even under the despotic rule of the
Czar of Russia, the people of Finland have been made
contented and prosperous in the same way, while Norway
and Sweden under one Sovereign, and separate govern-
ments are dwelling together in unity and peace.

The Canadian System of Home Rule.

Mr. John Morley, in a speech at Newcastle, gave a
brief explanation of the Canadian system of government
as follows: — "The Chairman referred to the Canadian
settlement. Now I am one of those who think that if you
are in conference there is some delicacy in treating in
public matters which are there dealt with more or less
privately. It is a matter of taste and good feeling, but
that is the way in which my taste and my good feeling
point. There is no reason, however, why I should not
respond to the Chairman's appeal, and say a word or two
about what is called the Canadian solution — and I am only
going to point out this to you, that if anybody thinks that
what is called the Canadian settlement is less favourable
to freedom in an Irish legislative body, than the system pro-
posed to be established under our Bill, he is very much mis-
taken. I am not for a moment saying that I wish to commit
myself to that scheme, but I am only anxious, that you who
are my constituents should be well informed as to the par-
ticulars of the matter. Now, you know what the govern-
ment of Canada is. There is a Dominion Parliament, to
which representatives are sent from all the separate
provinces. The idea to which the Chairman referred, is
that the legislature of Ireland should rank with, and be
like the Provincial Legislature, which is subordinate to this
Dominion Parliament. You have the Dominion Parlia-

tnent on the one hand, and you have the Provincial
Legislature on the other, and the idea is that Ireland
should stand to our Parliament in Westminster in the same
relation in which the Legislatures of the provinces like
Ontario, for instance, stands to the Dominion Parliament
Ottawa. Now, I am not going to detain you very long,
but I want to point out to you these particulars. In the
first place, I want to compare the powers of a provincial
legislature in Canada, with the power proposed to be con-
ferred by our Bill upon the Parliament of Ireland. In the
first place, a provincial legislature can modify its own con-
stitution. Our Bill would not have allowed the legislature
of Ireland to modify its own constitution ; therefore, in
that respect, our Bill was more restrictive than the con-
stitution of Canada. The second point is, that a provincial
legislature in Canada can endow religious bodies. Our
Bill would not have allowed an Irish Legislature to endow
a religious body. A third point is, that a complete power
as regards the establishment and abolition of rights and
properties and privileges of corporations exists in the
provincial legislatures. Our Bill denied the power to the
Irish Legislature. You see in these three points our Bill
was less liberal than the scheme which the Chairman has
referred to as being a better and safer alternative. It is
quite true that the Dominion Parliament — the superior
Parliament— in Canada appoints judges to superior county
and district courts, and that in our Bill we did confer this
power upon the Irish Government. But then the
Dominion, I must point out, is obliged to choose the
judges whom it does appoint from the Bars of the
provinces concerned, and it does what we would not pro-
pose to do — it pays the salaries of the judges so appointed.
Well, these are three minute details, perhaps not well

fitted for discussion in a great meeting of this kind, but
what I want you to believe is, that the more this question
is looked into the more it will be seen that the control of
the Irish over their own affairs would not be less under the
Canadian scheme, but would be more than it was under
our scheme. I will only add this — the power of the
Dominion Government is comparatively small, and is
rarely exercised. The Dominion Government, as I under-
stand, interferes in provinces like Ontario hardly more,
if any more, than the British Parliament would have inter-
fered in Ireland. The great difference is to be found in
this, that the British Parliament, though constitutionally
limited under our Bill, would have been strengthened not
merely by the prestige, and by its theoretically unlimited
constitutional authority, but by the full command and
presence of Imperial power and Imperial resources. The
Dominion Government in Canada has no equivalent of
that kind. If schemes of this sort are brought before
you— I don't know how that may be — I will beg you to
look very carefully into them, and not to believe, if they
are favoured even by Parliament, that that will necessarily
mean a less liberal concession of self-government to
Ireland, than the concession which Mr. Gladstone was
anxious and willing to make. When the time comes — and
I think it will come very soon — when the time comes for
dealing earnestly, seriously, and in detail with the problem
of framing a better government for Ireland, it will be
found that our plan, which the country rejected last July —
though you in Newcastle did not reject it — that plan,
though open to change and to improvement in many details,
yet went no further than any plan would have to go which
professes to make self-government in Ireland a reality, but
not a sham. I can only say that I for one will never be a
party to a sham settlement."^'

* Newspaper Report.

346
How Ireland is \ow Governed.

Dean Swift has said " Government without the con-
sent of the governed is the very definition of slavery." But
the present Government of Ireland is not only in opposi-
tion to the wishes of the people, but is also out of harmony
with our prestige as a nation, and it is useless trying to
secure adhesion to the law under such a system. Charles
James Fox saw this when he said "The only way to govern
Ireland is to please the people of Ireland." The Govern-
ment of Ireland to all intents and purposes is autocratic.
The Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary are at the head
of a Council of fifty-two members, and hold their meetings
in privacy. A permanent staff of Tory officials secure
information for the Council, and give advice to it on
matters of administration. Everything is under the control
of this dominant Executive.

Mr. Harvey, of Dublin, places the matter plainly
before the electors : — '

The Lord Lieutenant, and the almost exclusively Protestant
and exclusively anti-Nationalist, Irish Privy Council, through the
Commander of the Forces, regulate the movements of the troops in
Ireland. Through an Inspector-General, they direct the army of
1 2,000 armed police. Through a " Local Government Board " of
three persons, they control the Poor-law Guardians. Through a
"Board of Public Works " of three persons, they control the man-
agement of public works and public loans. Through a ' ' Prisons
Board " of four persons, they control the prisons. Through a
" Board of National Education," they, to a considerable extent,
control Irish Education. Through a paid "resident magistracy,"
they control the justices of the peace, the magistracy upon which
in most other English-speaking countries is thrown the sole adminis-
tration of the local laws. These justices of the peace are appointed
by the Lord Chancellor, of course with the Lord Lieutenant's
approval, upon the recommendation of the — always anti-Nationalist

noblemen — Lords Lieutenant of counties. The Lord Lieutenant
and Privy Council, through "boards," control Drainage, Fisheries,
Surveys, Petty Sessions Clerks, Lunatic Asylums, Dublin Hospitals,
Endowed Schools, Charitable Donations, Public Records, Loan
Funds, General Registry, Statistics, &c., &c.

It may be imagined what an army of officials is necessary for
such a system of control. It is officered in its higher ranks largely
by army officers, by Englishmen and Scotchmen — mostly Protest-
ants— and by a few Irishmen, shading down into a rank and file of
Irish Catholics in those grades where it is to be presumed the Gov-
ernment does not think it necessary that great dependence need be
placed. All the really important offices are held by Protestants — •
the Lord Lieutentant, his Private Secretary and Assistant-Secretary,
the Chief Secretary (who is also President of the Local Government
Board), the Under-Secretary, the Commander of the Forces, the
Vice-President and Secretary of the Local Goverment Board, the
Chairman and Secretary of the Board of Works, the Secretary of
the Post Office, the head of the Criminal Investigation Department,
the Inspector-General and Deputy Inspector-General, who command
the constabulary. I think I am correct in stating that all these
gentlemen are also Englishmen or Scotchmen. Englishmen or
Scotchmen may partially realize how this condition of affairs affects
Irish Catholics, by fancying to themselves Protestant England or
Scotland ruled by such Catholic Irishmen as Messrs. Sexton, Healy,
and Biggar, assisted by a largely Irish Catholic staff of officials, and
responsible only to a Parliament sitting in Dublin, five-sixths of
whose members should be Irish Catholics, most of them supremely
ignorant on all questions relating to England or Scotland.

The Municipal Franchise in Ireland is restricted and
imperfect. The police is independent of the local authori-
ties, and is drilled and armed like an army. The majority
of the officials of Ireland are Protestants and Tories, and
a few posts have been given to Catholics known to be
anti-Nationalist. Though Ireland is acknowledged to be
poor, yet Local Acts of Parliament involve the districts in
huge sums of money. A railway bill, for the construotidn

348

of a line 7^ miles in length, cost 8 per cent, of the total
cost, viz., ;^4,322, to get it through Parliament. Home
Rule would remedy this, and would secure greater freedom
to the Parliament at Westminster, as it would thereby be
freed from a mass of private bill legislation for drainage,
railways, waterworks, &c. ; and men acting with a due
weight of responsibility would give greater attention to the
interests of the country.

Causes of Mr. Gladstone's Defeat.

Mr. Gladstone's majority was broken down not by a
direct and fair issue, but by disguising and hiding the real
issues and bringing forward other questions, like the
proverbial red herring trailed across the scent to lead the
hounds astray. Misrepresentation was freely indulged in.
In spite of the statements clearly made by Irish leaders
and Mr. Gladstone, the Tories declared again and again
that these men aimed at separation. The old cry that Mr.
Gladstone was a Jesuit in disguise was freely revived.
False promises were made with great fervour.

Unionists Protest Against Coercion.

Mr. T. P. O'Connor quotes some of the election
addresses of Unionist candidates : —

"You will doubtless remember," said Mr. Barnes, the Liberal
Unionist member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, in his
election address, "that both in my addresses and speeches at the
last two elections I stated that I was in favour of Home Rule being
granted in Ireland in the shape of such a measure of local self-
government as could be extended to England, Scotland, and Wales,
at the same time maintaining the supremacy of the Imperial Parlia-
ment and the integrity of the United Kingdom. From that principle
I have never receded," "It is mere sophistry,". said Sir Henry
Havelock Allan, another Liberal Unionist, " to assert that the only
two alternatives are an absolute and abject surrender to the tyranny

349

of the National League on the one hand, or else unmitigated coercion
on the other. The legislative wisdom of Parliament is amply able
to devise, and I am sure after the last election will devise, a scheme
by which, while full scope is given to the legitimate aspirations of
the Irish people, as to the local management of their own local
affairs, this boon shall be conceded in a shape not dangerous to the
unity of the Empire or the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament."
Having detailed a different scheme of Home Rule from Mr. Glad-
stone's, including retention of Irish members, and the appointment
of judges by the imperial authority with two legislative bodies, Sir
Henry said : "I think it highly probable that the lines I have
indicated represent the precise shape in which Mr. Gladstone's plans
will be presented to Parliament in October next. Should that prove
to be the case, I need not say what sincere and hearty pleasure it
would give me to follow my revered and honoured leader once more
at the head of a united Liberal Party." "To Coercion I object,"
exclaimed Colonel Nicholas Wood, Tory member for the Houghton-
le-Spring Division of Durham ; "and my firm and hearty support
will be given to a considerable extension and improvement of local
government alike to the people of England, Scotland, Wales, and
Ireland, delegated by and under the supreme control of an Imperial
Parliament, in which they are fully represented." "I indignantly
repudiate the imputation," said Sir Roper Lethbridge, the Tory
member for North Kensington, " that the only alternative policy is
one of Coercion. On the contrary, all parties in the United King-
dom, with the exception of the extremists led by Mr. Gladstone and
Mr. Parnell, are now fairly agreed on the general lines of a policy
that shall satisfy all the legitimate aspirations of Irishmen for local
self-government, that shall secure the return of law and order in
Ireland, that shall treat Ulster as fairly as the other provinces, and
that shall at the same time maintain unimpaired the unity of the
empire and the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament." " It is
suggested," said Mr. Boord, Tory member for Greenwich, " that
Coercion is the only alternative to Mr. Gladstone's scheme, and
that it is the policy of Lord Salisbury. The suggestion is false.
Coercion, if it means anything in this connection, implies the forcible
curtailment of the rights and liberties of the Irish people. Lord
Salisbury, on the contrary, recommends a firm and constitutional

350

government, such as Ireland has been unused to of late, which, by the
suppression of crime, would secure the exercise of their rights and
the enjoyment of their liberties to all alike." Mr. Evelyn, Tory
member for Deptford, said: "That he could not agree with Mr,
Gladstone's statement that there was no alternative between Home
Rule and Coercion. While he was opposed to Home Rule as
revealed in the new Bill, he was also averse to special measures of
coercive legislation, unless such were imperatively necessary. He
feared if by special legislation they endeavoured to put down the
Land League, they would embark on a dangerous enterprise, and
secret societies might revive." Again Mr. Erelyn said: "I have
been asked whether. I would vote for Coercion in Ireland. I have
always considered, long before I ever thought of being a candidate
for Deptford, that the Crimes Act, which was introduced by Mr.
Gladstone and a Whig Government in 1882, was a most abominable
and unconstitutional measure."

The Land Bill frightened many who saw only the
figures quoted by Unionists, and who did not examine the
matter for themselves. Gross misstatements were made,
and speakers did not hesitate to declare that Mr. Glad-
stone's Land Bill would cost the people of England sums
ranging from ^200,000,000 to ;^4oo,ooo,ooo. The idea
was preposterous, but was swallowed by gullible electors.

Mr. Gladstone Abused.

The policy of abusing the plaintifi's attorney, because
the defendant had no case, was indulged in without
stint. Mr. Gladstone was villified as though he were an
escaped convict from Pentonville, the sum total of all the
vices in creation, an arch-traitor steeped to the lips in
treasons, stratagems and spoils. The virulence of the
attacks made by Tories, and hurled also with little
judgment or charity by Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain,
surprised many people. Many of the attacks made by Tory
speakers exceeded the bounds of fair and honest criticisrfi,

351

and savoured of the neighbourhood of Billingsgate. Mr.
Bright and Mr. Chamberlain were indignant at the conduct
of the Liberal leader, but presumed that it was owing to
the bad company he kept. They forgot that at one time
they also held fellowship with the same men. When the
servant of Dr. Lindsay Alexander wanted to see his master
receive an University honour, he was prevented from
entering the hall by the door keepers. So he went to the
ceiling and looked at the ceremony through the ventilation
hole. In speaking of the matter to his master afterwards,
he said : " It was a braw sight ; but eh, Doctor, ye were
in a place where there was awful bad air ! " He had
viewed the scene from a poor place. So it is with the
late Liberal leaders. They have retired too far from
their earlier principles and methods, and hold themselves
aloof from the company of old associates, and the vitiated
political atmosphere they breathe is the consequence of
their altered position. A correspondent of one of the
Liverpool papers pointed out that even Sunday Schools
were used by the Tories for political party purposes. He
gave a sample of a tract issued, entitled ** The Two Prime
Ministers." It was headed by a verse of Scripture, ** By
me kings reign and princes decree judgment." It
proceeded to describe the late Lord Beaconsfield as a
statesman who looked for the foundation of national and
social life in religion — a religion based upon the Bible,
which taught God's special providence in respect to the
to the nations of the earth. And then went on to say that
Mr. Gladstone, on the other hand, had foresworn
patriotism, has bidden good-bye to principle, and had
adjured faith in his country's destiny ; that he had become
cosmopolitan, less perhaps from the love of other countries
than hatred to his own ; that he had done more to under-

352

mine the two great characteristics of the British people,
their strong sense of justice and duty, than any statesman
who has preceded him. It then proceeded to try to iden-
tify Mr. Gladstone with the Phoenix Park murders, as the
betrayer of General Gordon, and as shedding ** crocodile
tears " over Bulgarian atrocities. The correspondent was
greatly shocked, that such scandalous rubbish should be
circulated by Sunday schools.

At the demonstration of Tories and Unionists at the
seat of Lord Londonderry, the Tory Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland, the following ditty was sung : —
The G. O. M.
When the Grand Old Man goes to his doom
He will ride in a fiery chariot,
And sit in state
On a red-hot plate
'Twixt Satan and Judas Iscariot.
Says the Devil, " My place is quite full, as you see,

But I'll try and do all that I can.
So I'll let Ananias and Judas go free.
And take in the Grand Old Man."
But the Devil soon found the whole thing a sell.
For old Gladdy corrupted all people in Hell.

Gone, Gone.
Gone from the sweets of office.

Gone from the head of affairs ;
Gone in the head, they tell us ;

Gone — and nobody cares.
Gone, not to join the angels,

Gone to reflect on the past,
Gone into Opposition ;

Gladstone's gone at last.
Gone, let us hope for ever ;

Gone, whither none can tell ;
Gone, let us hope to Heaven,

There are devils enough in Hell.
Says Satan, "The place is as full as can be,

But I like to make room if I can."
So he let Ananias and Judas go free,

And took in the Grand Old Man.

353
The Charge that Mr. Gladstone is Intolerant.

Again it was said that Mr. Gladstone had not taken
his Cabinet into his confidence, but had ruled the party
with the hand of an autocrat, and that he was self-willed,
and intolerant to his followers. It was declared that he
was opposed to compromise, and would make no con-
cession to gain back dissentient followers. Sir G.
Trevelyan, however, in a speech at North Paddington
disproved this by saying : — " Mr. Gladstone has made a
definite offer to confer with his brother liberals for the
the purpose of arranging the Irish Policy of the Liberal
Party." In another notable speech he also indignantly
protested against the action of Liberal leaders, who urged
electors to vote for Tory candidates, and he said " I am a
true Liberal." Mr. Gladstone's modifications of his
Home Rule Measure to secure the return of malcontent
liberals are matters of history, and they disillusion the
candid mind on the question of his treatment of the
Party. The olive branch has been held out repeatedly.

Mr. Gladstone's Concessions.
At Singleton Abbey in South Wales, he declared that
the exclusion of the Irish members was not an essential
part of the Home Rule Scheme, and he then stated what he
regarded as vital in any scheme to be proposed by him-
self or the Liberal Party. As the exclusion of the Irish
members was one of the chief points of objections made
by Lord Hartington, Mr. Chamberlain, and Sir G.
Trevelyan, it was reasonably expected that these statesmen
would respond to the overture of reconciliation. Mr.
Gladstone said in his speech : —

Now, I am going to call your attention particularly to this
question of the retention or the exclusion of Irish members from

354

Westminster in connection with the establishment of a Parliament,
or local legislative body in Dublin, for the management of exclu-
sively Irish affairs ; and I think it may do well to remind you of
what has actually taken place on the subject, from which you will
see how entirely free we are to deal with the whole of this question
as policy and good sense may dictate. When the Irish Government
Bill was introduced I was closely pressed to declare what were
the essential conditions of that Bill. What were the essential
objects in the project is of importance that it might be
understood in future what portions of the Bill were open
to discussion, and what was already closed to discussion.
And on the 14th April, 1886, I laid down five points as essential
points. One point was that imperial unity should be pre-
served, of course through the supremacy of Parliament. The
second point was, that all the kingdom should be kept upon the
basis of essential political equality. The third was, that there
should be an equitable distribution of imperial burdens — I will not
say anything now upon that, because I conceive there is no doubt
about it. Fourthly, that there should be safeguards for minorities.
Well, that had reference to the jealousies which prevailed in Ulster,
and we declared that if there was a well-considered desire made
known to us on the part of the bulk of the Protestant population in
that portion of Ulster capable of being dealt with separately, we
were perfectly agreed to consider any plan for that purpose. And,
fifthly, the last essential was, that the measure we proposed should
be in the nature of what is called a final arrangement — a real settle-
ment. We never can speak of absolute finality, but still, that it
should be in the nature of one of those real settlements which we
expect not to be followed at any indefinite time by a re-agitation of
the subject. Now, these were the five essential points of the
measure, and you will observe that at that date the inclusion or
exclusion of Irish members at Westminster was not among our
essential points.

Irish Representation at Westminster.

It was left to be dealt with freely, as expediency and convic-
tion of the country might determine. I then go on to observe
what took place. Our proposal was that, for a time at any rate, it

355

would be better that the Irish members should not appear at West-
minster. But a gentleman of great weight in our debates — Mr.
Whitbread — suggested that, although he believed that the Irish
would be, and must be, for a time unhappily absorbed in what I
may call setting Ireland right — in dealing with the perplexed prob-
lem which the state of Ireland, after all our miscarriages and all
our mismanagement, presents — yet, after a time, and when that
work was accomplished, probably there would be a desire for a
state of things in which there ought to be some kind of Irish repre-
sentation at Westminster. That was stated by Mr. Whitbread on
the 14th April, the same day on which I laid down these as essential
points. I don't reject that opinion at all. On the contrary, when
Mr. Whitbread had given his view, I stated that there was great force
in what he had said. But I was not able to bind myself, far less my
colleagues. You will easily understand that the leader of a Govern-
ment cannot, upon questions rising in debate, then and there,
without taking the deliberate opinion of his colleagues, undertake to
say what their judgment would be. That would be to reduce them
to servitude. I could not bind myself, or the Government, but,
unquestionably, I would not close the door against the proposition.
Therefore, you see that, at that time, we were perfectly open to con-
sider the plan for the inclusion, if it should be found expedient, of
the Irish members at Westminster.

What is Essential.
That, gentlemen, is what has taken place. Now let me say
that, in my opinion, for the right management of this question, the
one thing that is, beyond all others, necessary, is that we should
clearly in our own mind regulate our conduct according to what points
we clearly see are essential, and what points are secondary. Now
of the five points I have mentioned three of them are practically
not in controversy. The only two that remain are — on the side of
Great Britain, the unity of the empire and the supremacy of Parlia-
ment ; on the side of Ireland, that the measure of Home Rule, that
is, the management of strictly Irish affairs by strict Irish authority,
shall be real and effective, and shall be accepted as real and
effective by the Irish nation. In my opinion, these are the essential
points, and everything else is open for consideration. We thought

356

so last year ; still more I think so now, and therefore there should
be no alarm upon the supposition — the futile and idle supposition —
that we have some foregone conviction on the subject of the repre-
sentation of Irish affairs by Irish members in the Westminster
Parliament. This question of the retention or exclusion of Irish
members is a question of great importance and great difficulty, but
it is a British much more than an Irish question. The Irish have
made no essential point of it from the beginning. The Irish wish
to be as free as possible, that they may give their attention to the
settlement of the many Irish problems they have before them, con-
nected with the different branches of the work of government."

Mr. Gladstone's spirit of conciliation will be seen in
the fact that he declares himself ready to accept and
support any scheme of Home Rule which would be
effective — " subject of course," he says, " to the supre-
macy of Parliament and the unity of the Empire, but
accepted freely by the people of Ireland." Of such a
scheme he further says : '* it will be accepted and more, it
will be promoted by me to the best of my ability, even
although it may not settle, at the time, the question of Irish
representation at Westminster, and even though it may
involve some plan in the adjustment of some matter which
may not commend itself to me as absolutely the best upon
which to proceed."

Mr. Parnell and Irish Representation at
Westminster.

His disinterestedness and honesty in the matter had
been pi oven previously when he sought, through Mr.
Balfour, to agree with Lord Salisbury, and support that
nobleman in a Tory measure of Home Rule that would be
acceptable to the Irish nation. The inclusion of Irish mem-
bers so as to retain the Imperial character of the Legisla-
ture at Westminster has since secured the approval of Mr.
Parnell, who in a letter to a prominent colonial gentleman,

357

declares his belief that such a representation might be
effected without injustice. The competence of the
Imperial Parliament to legislate, if necessary, for Ireland as
well as the rest of the Empire would thus be safeguarded.
But even these concessions have failed to satisfy Lord
Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain, though they induced
Sir G. Trevelyan to finally take his stand by the side of his
revered and aged chief. Mr. Parnell's letter is as
follows :—

23rd June, 1888.
Dear Sir, — I am much obliged to you for your letter of the 19th
inst., which confirms the very interesting account given meat Avon-
dale last January, as to his interviews and conversations with you
on the subject of Home Rule for Ireland. I may say at once, and
frankly, that I think you have correctly judged the exclusions of the
Irish members from Westminster to have been a defect in the Home
Rule measure of 1886; and further, that this proposed exclusion
may have given some colour to the accusations so freely made
against the Bill — that it had a Separatist tendency. I say this
while strongly asserting and believing that the measure itself was
accepted by the Irish people without any afterthought of the kind,
and with an earnest desire to work it out with the same spirit in
which it was offered — a spirit of cordial goodwill and trust, a desire
to let bygones be bygones, and a determination to accept it as a
final and satisfactory settlement of the long-standing dispute and
trouble between Great Britain and Ireland. I am very glad to find
that you consider the measure of Home Rule to be granted to Ireland
should be thoroughgoing, and should give her complete control over
her own affairs without reservation, and I cordially agree with your
opinion that there should be effective safeguards for the maintenance
of Imperial unity. Your conclusion as to the only alternative for
Home Rule is also entirely my own, for I have long felt that the con-
tinuance of the present semi-constitutional system is quite impractic-
able. But, to return to the question of retention of the Irish
members at Westminster, my own views upon the points, and
probabilities of the future, and the bearing of this subject upon
the question of Imperial Federation, my own feeling of the

358

measure is that if Mr. Gladstone includes in his next Home Rule
measure provisions of such retention we should cheerfully concur
in them, and accept them with goodwill and good faith, with the
intention of taking our share in the Imperial partnership. I believe
also that in the event stated this will be the case, and that the Irish
people will cheerfully accept the duties and responsibilities assigned
to them, and will justly value the position given to them in the
Imperial system. I am convinced that it would be the highest
statesmanship on Mr. Gladstone's part to devise a feasible plan for
the continued presence of the Irish members here, and from my
observation of public events and of opinion since 1885, I am sure
that Mr. Gladstone is fully alive to the importance of the matter,
and there can be no doubt that the next measure of autonomy for
Ireland will contain the provision which you rightly deem of such
moment.

It does not come so much within my province to express a full
opinion upon the larger question of Imperial Federation, but I agree
with you that the continued Irish representation at Westminster
will immensely facilitate such a step, while the contrary provision
in the Bill of 1886 would have been a bar. Undoubtedly this is a
matter which should be dealt with in accordance largely with the
opinion of the Colonies themselves, and if they should desire to
share in the cost of Imperial matters, as undoubtedly they now
do in the responsibility, and should express a wish for representa-
tion at Westminster, I certainly think that it should be accorded to
them, and that public opinion in these islands would unanimously
concur in the necessary constitutional modifications. I am, dear
sir, yours truly,

(Signed) Charles Stewart Parnell.

The Land Bill and Mr. Gladstone's Defeat.

One prominent objection to the Land Bill was also
removed by Mr. Gladstone. It was stated by the Liberal
Dissentients that the Imperial credit was risked by the
plan of giving landlords power to sell their estate, but Mr.
Gladstone now stated, that while he did not believe that
by his scheme the Imperial Exchequer would be charged

359

with moneys needed for the purchase of estates, yet as
the electors had rejected it, he saw that it was possible
and practicable to propose a plan of land reform without
introducing in it any question of Imperial credit. He
said — '*0f all the points which caused our defeat in the last
general election, and certainly of all the points which con-
stituted as far as I know the difficulty amongst our best
friends, the most important and the most dangerous was
this — that we had to propose to make a very large use of
Imperial credit for the purpose of buying out the Irish
landlords. I think, gentlemen, you will not differ from me
much in the great importance which I assign to the subject
as an element in the decision of the last general election.
Well, let me say this as regards the use of Imperial credit
on that occasion. I have the firmest conviction that we
never proposed to risk a sixpence. But that does not
decide the case. The use of Imperial credit upon a large
scale is a very large and important question in itself, and
besides that it is not to be denied, in my opinion, that the
mind of the country was greatly stirred upon that subject,
and that the Liberal mind of the country was very adverse
for the most part to the proposal. But, gentlemen, my
duty is to consider is that proposal essential to any sound
plan of policy to Ireland ? I at once tell you this, and
make a confession, that in our proposal on behalf of the
Irish landlords in the last session of Parliament we went
to the furthest point on their behalf that we could strain
ourselves to go, and we did that upon two grounds — partly
because we knew they had been the petted children of
England, which now, as it were, was turning round upon
them in some degree, and partly because we wished to
give to our opponents every inducement for a great and
speedy settlernent of a national question. I cherish the

36o

opinion —it is almost a belief — in my own mind that it will
be perfectly possible to devise a plan for the safe purchase
of estates in Ireland, by which the landlord would receive
a perfect security in respect of the price of his property,
whatever the just price may be, without trenching on
Imperial credit. I am not now speaking of minor
questions or minor sums, I am speaking of the basis of
the general plan ; and as regards the basis of the general
plan, I can conceive it possible to arrange a plan which
will provide for the purchase and sale of estates in Ireland
without the general use of Imperial credit. But any such
plan known to me absolutely and essentially requires as a
vital condition the institution of a real Irish Government,
able to speak and to act for Ireland, and without that I do
not see how to stir a step towards the adoption of such a
plan."

Goethe, the great German genius, said of the Englisk
people — " Their Parliamentary parties are great opposing
forces which paralyze one another, and where the superior
insight of an individual can hardly break through." Never
has this been more clearly manifest than in the Home
Rule controversy. Mr. Gladstone has been hedged in and
obstructed by every weakling who has succeeded in
beguiling a constituency, and he has been retarded by the
great leaders who have left him in the hour of conflict.

But while this is the danger of our constitutional
system, it is also its safety, and it prevents autocrats from
coercing the people of England. Unfortunately, however,
it is not strong enough to prevent unjust and coercive
measures from being harshly and brutally applied to
Ireland. Conceived in bitterness, they are administered
without sympathy. Mr. Bright's reference to Mr. Glad-
stone during the Reform Agitation has a preseiat

36i

significance when so many smaller creatures lift their
heels in the constituencies and Parliament to kick at the
defeated leader.

Mr. Bright says : — *' Who is there in the House of
Commons who equals him in knowledge of all political
questions ? Who equals him in earnestness ? Who equals
him in eloquence ? Who equals him in courage and
fidelity to his convictions ? If these gentlemen who say
they will not follow him have any one who is his equal let
them show him. If they can point out any statesman
who can add dignity and grandeur to the stature of Mr.
Gladstone let them produce him. It is a deplorable thing
that last year a small section of forty men or thereabouts
of professing Liberals destroyed the honest and acceptable
bill of the late Government, and with it also destroyed
the Government that proposed it. About an equal number
have this year to a great extent destroyed the power of the
Opposition, and may assist an anti-reforming Government
to pass a ver}'' bad measure on the greatest question of our
time, and having done all the mischief which they could,
they began to write silly letters to their constituents.
What can be done in parliamentary parties if every man
is to pursue his own little game ? A costermonger and
donkey would take a week to travel from here to London,
and yet by running thwart the London and North-Western
line they might bring to total destruction a great express
train. And so very small men who during their whole politi-
cal lives have not advanced the question of reform by one
hair's-breadth, or by one moment of time, can, in a critical
hour like this, throw themselves athwart the objects of a
great party and mar, it may be, a great measure that
sought to eifect the interests of the country beneficially
for all time,"

362

How Liberal-Unionists have been Received
BY the Constituencies.

The way in which the Liberal-Unionist candidates
have been received ought to be significant. Constituency
after constituency has rejected them. One solitary victory
at Doncaster, where all the territorial influence of the
Fitzwilliams only secured the seat to one of the family
against a stranger by a few votes, broke the long line of
defeats. Lord Randolph Churchill, notwithstanding his
friendship with Mr. Chamberlain, contempuously referred
to the Liberal-Unionists as a crutch, and was stung in
return by the rejoinder that crutches are only used by
cripples. But the crutch has failed in many a constitu-
ency. Mr. Goschen tried to run the gaunlet at Edinburgh
and Liverpool, and then was received sadly wounded and
wearied into the safe Tory refuge of St. George's, Hanover
Square. " Sweet are the uses of adversity," — and instruc-
tive and interesting have been the bye-elections. The
centres of population in England and Scotland have
reversed the decisions of the general election. Burnley,
Glasgow, Northwich, Spalding, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Ayr,
and Southampton came to the rescue of the Liberal party,
until the Ultra-Tory organ — the SL fames' Gazette — recom-
mended that Liberal-Unionists should be treated with
indifl'erence because they were discredited and paralysed.

Liberal Re-Union.

There is little hope of re-union until the Irish question
is settled. That there will be continued coming together
in the constituencies is clear, for in spite of Mr. Chamber-
lain and Mr. Jesse Collins, supported by the new associa-
tions, the adherents of Dissentient Liberalism are becoming
fewer. Liberals cannot remain long in antagonism to the

363

self-government of Ireland. The old conservative spirit
of distrust in the people can never long hold those who
at heart are Liberals, and cannot keep them back from
ultimately trusting the Irish people. Radicalism as a
veneer, a mere surface polish, will soon wear away, and
those who are Tories at heart will appear in their true
colour; but where sound Radical principle is ingrained
in a man's mind, the temporary tarnish of Toryism will
vanish, as the foulest breath cannot dim or stain the
polished mirror beyond a passing moment. To keep down
national aspirations, to check free speech, to gag the voice
of the newspapers, to erect Star Chambers and extort con-
victions by threats, and to treat political prisoners as
common felons, is not the expression of Liberal principle.
The cleavage in the ranks of Liberal-Unionists will doubt-
less become greater as their day of political doom draws
nearer, and each part will go into its own place in political
life, and become merged into the party with which it is
most in sympathy. ,

Round-Table Conference.

An attempt was made in 1887 to re-unite the Liberal
leaders. A round-table conference was held, and Sir
Wm. Harcourt, Mr. John Morley, and Lord Herschell —
representing the views of Mr. Gladstone— met Mr.
Chamberlain and Sir G. Trevelyan who dissented, in
friendly consultation.

Mr. Chamberlain Blamed for Failure of
Conference.

Sir G. Trevelyan has publicly blamed Mr. Chamber-
lain, his ally, for the failure of the Conference. While a
basis of settlement was being laid down and the meetings

5^4

were still going on, Mr. Chamberlain wrote an ill-advised
letter to the Baptist newspaper. The reasonable hope of
reconciliation was blighted, and the negotiations were
effectually stopped by this injudicious or malicious action
of Mr. Chamberlain. To refer to a party led by a time-
honoured chief as "the enemy drawn up with their fingers
on the triggers of their rifles," would not be helpful to any
friendly negotiation, and ought not to have been uttered
in time of truce. To speak afterwards of the followers of
Mr. Gladstone as "a discredited faction supporting a dying
cause," showed how much Mr. Chamberlain had given up
and was ready to give up again, before allowing the
Liberal party to obtain power. More than this, his ready
acceptance of Coercion when proposed by a Tory Govern-
ment, after threatening the wreck of a previous Liberal
Government on a similar question, and after doing so
much to bring about the separation of Mr. Forster from
the Liberal Cabinet on that subject, showed how far in the
dust the idol of the Democracy had fallen. The question
was naturally asked what has changed Mr. Chamberlain ?
Some replied that it was because he had lost the political
guidance of Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. John Morley, with
whom he had been on terms of much intimacy. The Irish
members were ready to reply — " disappointed ambition,"
and they pointed to communications made to them by Mr.
Chamberlain to justify the answer.

Did Mr. Chamberlain think that Mr. Gladstone's age
should have compelled him to step aside and leave the
power in younger hands, or did he misapply Liberal
principles in a time of great national and party crisis ?
Is it failure at a period of great national exigency or a
spirit of resentment because Mr. Gladstone refused to
approve a certain unauthorised programme, that has led

365

Mr. Chamberlain into his present course, was freely asked
by those who had honoured and followed him ? In
either case Mr. Chamberlain has shown his unfitness
to be the leader of a great party. Henry VIII. deposed
the Pope from the headship of the English Church
that he might arrogate to himself the position. Was it
Mr. Chamberlain's aim to depose Mr. Gladstone in the
leadership of the party ? Mr. Labouchere was not slow
in replying ** Yes! " and he complained that the Joseph of
the present, like the one of old, had had dreams of the
sun and moon, and the sheaves paying homage to his
brightness and worth. Be that as it may. The acts of
statesmen are the only test of their principles and motives,
and it will be better to suppose that a man so gifted and
pronounced has erred, than that he has deliberately
violated the laws of honour and generosity and dis-
interested patriotism.

While Mr. Chamberlain must submit to candid criti-
cism, he is also entitled to a fair, honest, and charitable
interpretation of his public acts. Every statesman and
politician deserves it equally — including Mr. Gladstone
and Sir G. Trevelyan. It is, however, sad to Liberals to
see that it stands to the eternal discredit of Mr. Chamber-
lain that while refusing to listen to the voice of the
elections of Ireland, and while objecting to apply in a
time of need the great Liberal principle of trust in the
people, he has swallowed wholesale the most obnoxious
Tory bolus of Coercion, with which the administration
of Ireland has ever been cursed. The men with whom
he held sweet counsel in the past have been denounced by
him as associates of murderers and rebels, and into every
speech denunciation of Parnellism has crept, like King
Charles' head in the memorial of the poor demented uncle

366

of David Copperfield. Mr. Chamberlain has been regarded
as the chief opponent of re-union, and yet he has com-
plained of the conduct of Mr. Gladstone and has lamented
the condition of the Liberal party. Sterne starved his
mother, but bewailed a dead ass. Mr. Chamberlain, un-
bending and unforgiving, refusing to come to terms with
the majority of the Liberal party, and yet mourning its
divisions and weakness, is a strange spectacle.

Whether there will be a Coalition Government,
headed by Lord Randolph Churchill and Mr. Chamber-
lain, to take up the question of Home Rule, is a possibility
of the future. It is, however, certain that friendly com-
munications have passed between them. In speaking of
Mr. Chamberlain, in a speech at Tunbridge, Lord R.
Churchill said, referring to the allotment policy of the
former, "that he was obliged to take facts as he found
them. They had found out there was much in Mr.
Chamberlain's policy which need not sharply divide them
from him, while Mr. Chamberlain had found out he was
entirely in the wrong in the estimate which he had formed
as to the class prejudices, and as to the reactionary
tendency of the modern Tory party. These were political
prospects which cheered him." Mr. Chamberlain has also
referred approvingly of Lord Randolph Churchill.

Sir George Trevelyan's opinion of his former
ally has been publicly and deliberately stated. He
said, referring to Mr Chamberlain's letter on the Round-
Table Conference :— " It is not in Mr. Chamberlain's
nature to make an admission, or a withdrawal, without
doing something for the purpose of paying out the person
to whom he is apologising. ... In dealing with him

one has to watch evesry loophole My impression

from the whole business is that I am fortunate in having

36?

come out of close and confidential personal relations with
Mr. Chamberlain without his being able to bring against
me any more serious charge than this which he has
trumped up in his letter."

Mr. Parnell has also referred in severest terms to
Mr. Chamberlain's conduct in relation to the Irish party
and to his conduct while a member of the Liberal Cabinet,
and his views coincide with those of Sir G. Trevelyan.
But his strongest charge is that Mr. Chamberlain deliber-
ately betrayed Cabinet secrets. To this charge Mr.
Chamberlain has signally failed to present disproof.

Mr. Davitt on the Work of an Irish Parliament.

Mr. Michael Davitt has pointed out what would be
the work of an Irish Parliament, viz. : ** To make new
laws and order respected and obeyed, to obtain a per-
manent settlement between the Irish State and the Irish
landlords, and to draw from the fiscal resources of Ireland
the compensation required for the transfer of land from
the present owners to the State ; the resuscitation of
manufacturing industries without any interference with the
similarity of tariffs, customs and taxes between Ireland and
Great Britain ; the remodelling of a system of popular
mstruction, so that more skilful farmers, labourers, and
artisans might be secured ; and a great national regenera-
tion, by which the workhouse system might be supplanted
by one which, while succouring the poor, would not
degrade them."

Mr. Parnell's Bills.

Mr. Parnell's Relief Bill was intended to pave the
way for a more equitable arrangement between landlord
and tenant. It proposed to reduce the number of years

368

for which Judicial rents were fixed, and thus to allow
for the rise or fall of agricultural produce. Mr. Parnell
pointed out that *'fair rents, by change of circumstances,
became unfair rents." He provided for including certain
leaseholders in the benefits of the Land Act of 1881. He
aimed at giving to the Land Courts power to deal with
arrears of rent, not only by arranging for the payment of
instalments, but also by reducing the amount in cases where
justice demanded it. He saw that the arrears were
hanging like millstones around the necks of thrifty and
hard-working tenants. The Government, however, de-
feated both the itieasures Mr. Parnell introduced. They
could not see that as a spoonful of treacle is more attractive
to bees than a barrel full of vinegar, so this small respite
would do more to allay the strong feeling of Irish tenants
than the most stringent coercive measures.

Lord Salisbury and the British Taxpayer.

Lord Salisbury's opinion was as follows : ** If it
should come out that the Land Courts have made blunders,
and that there is that impossibility of paying rent, I think
it is not the landlords who should bear the loss. I think
this would be one of the cases for the application of the
principle of purchase by the State, and that the State and
not the landlords must suffer for the errors that have been
made. Mr. T. P. O'Connor, commenting on this state-
ment, says, ** Somebody must be robbed for the landlord,
if not his tenant, why then the English taxpayer." Lord
Salisbury has outstripped Mr. Gladstone in suggesting
that the people of England shall be fleeced to pay the
Irish landlords.

Tories and Home Rule.
Rumours have been in the air that the Tories were

369

once more going to *' dish " their opponents by bringing
in a Home Rule Bill. This has elicited much surprise,
and has been regarded as a sop to Ceberus, or as Maccabe
would call it, "Tin fifin' to catch the 'igher orders." It
was thought to be an attempt to form a constitution which
could be worked in the interests of the classes, and should
stave off any great measure of freedom, by giving the
semblance of liberty and self-government without its
reality and worth. But if the Tories do this it will only
be because the march of events compels them, as it did in
the case of Catholic Emancipation, Free Trade, and the
Extension of the Franchise.

The Government evidently felt that something should
be done. The unprecedented fall of prices had driven
many of the agriculturists to the verge of despair. Rents
fixed by the Land Courts in 1882-3 were much higher than
in 1885-6, and if they were legitimate and just when
produce brought good prices, they became manifestly
unjust in depressed times. Then those who hurried first
into the Land Courts, were, in many cases, the tenants
who had suffered most deeply from hard landlords, and
now again, by the great fall of prices, their sufferings were
renewjijd. People were evicted who did not pay the
judicial rents of 1882-3, and were then re-admiited as
caretakers, but though they were joint owners of the farms
before the eviction, their appointment as caretakers did
not restore it, so that, by a legal process, founded upon an
unfair rent which the land could not pay, they were
deprived of their share in the holding, without com-
pensation.

The Cowper Commission.

A Commission was appointed under Lord Cowper to
enquire into the operations of the Land Act of 188 1. It

370

was hoped and expected that it would report in such a way
as to justify the action of the Government in resisting
Mr. Parnell's Bill, but like Balaam, instead of cursing, it
blessed the obnoxious party concerned, and recommended
the inclusion of the leaseholder in the benefits of the Act,
and the revision of judicial rents — ^just the provisions
which Mr. Parnell had previously recommended. The
Government could then only say in the language of Lord
R. Churchill, that though Parliament appointed Com-
missions, they were not pledged to act according to their
suggestions. Mr. Chamberlain had, however, a patent
method of remedying all the grievances of tenants. He
recommended them to pass through the flowery way of
bankruptcy, to a national paradise, where landlords should
be provided for at the expense of the small shopkeepers,
who had supplied food on credit to a starving peasantry.
One proposal of Mr. Chamberlain's was specially obnoxious.
The landlord was to have one year's rent secured as a first
charge on the bankrupt tenant's estate, and the shopkeeper
was to share only in the dividend subsequently left, when
the landlord had been paid. Other proposals were also
favourable to landlords, such as freedom from poor rates
and county cess (county rates), where rents had not been
obtained.

Lord R. Churchill was in favour of including lease-
holders, and was opposed to the bankruptcy clauses ; he
was in favour of a revision of rents, and he ridiculed the
proposal of erecting a new fabric of national prosperity on
the basis of national insolvency.

General Gordon's Views.
General Gordon's views published in the Times of
1880, are instructive. He says : —

37'

" I have come to the conclusion that —

"I. A gulf of antipathy exists between the landlords and
tenants of the North-West and "West and South-West of Ireland.
It is a gulf which is not caused alone by the question of rent ; there
is a complete lack of sympathy between these two classes. It is
useless to inquire how such a state of things has come to pass. I
call your attention to the pamphlets, letters, and speeches of the
landlord class as a proof of how little sympathy or kindness there
exists among them for the tenantry, and I am sure that the
tenantry feel in the same way towards the landlords.

" 2. No half-measured Acts which left the landlords with any
say to the tenantry of these portions of Ireland will be any use.
They would be rendered — as past Land Acts in Ireland have been —
quite abortive, for the landlords will insert clauses to do away with
their force. Any half measures will only place the Government face to
face with the people of Ireland, as the champions of the landlord interest.
The Government would he bound to enforce their decision, and with a result
which none can foresee, but which would certainly be disastrous to the
common weal."

Tory attempts to deal with the Land
Question.

The Government's attempts to deal with the Land
Question have been partial, incomplete, and unworkable.
The Ashbourne Act aimed at making it easier to transfer
holdings from landlords to tenants, but the process of
doing so is slow and tedious, and there is no clause for
compulsory sales where the necessities of the districts
demand them. In addition, the Imperial Exchequer is
involved in dangerous risks, and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer is made rent-receiver, so that the State is
brought into direct relationship with every occupier who
takes advantage of the Act to purchase his holding. The
Bill was honestly conceived and moulded, as far as possible
to suit the circumstances of necessitous landlords as well

372

as necessitous tenants, but it is a feeble attempt to grapple
with the huge land difficulty.

Poor Imitations.

An old Highland woman, who saw an Englishman
attempting to play the bagpipes, is reported to have
indignantly cried, " Dinna mak' a fule o' the thing." But
this is just what the Tories have done in their attempts
at settling the vexed question of Irish land reform.
They have dawdled with the legislation dealing with
arrears, while threats of eviction were dangled over the
heads of thrifty tenants, like the sword of Damocles.
Then finding that the landlords were dealing harshly
with tenants, to hide their bungling attempts to formulate
a policy, they violated the spirit of legality by restraining
landlords and refusing them the necessary force to evict,
unless their cases were unimpeachable in equity as well
as law. Landlords acting within the law, which the
Tories refused to alter at the petition of Mr. Parnell
and the Irish Party, were refused the police and military
forces needed for the carrying out of the law. When Mr.
John Morley during his secretaryship was accused of this,
the Tories raised their voices of denunciation. But when
Sir M. H. Beach, General Butler, and Captain Plunkett
were charged with having refused to supply force for
carrying out legal but unjust evictions, the Tories were
silent. They could not approve of the illegality of their
own leaders, but they would not condemn, though their
condemnation of the same action by a political opponent
had been unsparing and unremitting. But these Tory
officials were only expressing the same principle as that
announced by the Irish leaders. Their sense of right and
of humanity overcame their attachment to law, but it

373

would have been better had Sir M. H. Beach accepted
Mr. Parnell's measures, and insisted on the alteration of
the law, than allow evictions to be stopped by arbitrary
Acts illegal and unconstitutional. In the lute, this rift
made the tune of Tory government in Ireland discordant.
Their intentions were humane and kind, but their actions
were irregular and illegal. The landlords had a right in
law to call for the loan of the eviction machinery, and the
puppets of Irish government, to evict tenants for not
paying impossible rents.

Modern Balaams.

Sir Red vers Buller was sent to Ireland as Under
Secretary to take the place of Mr. R. Hamilton who was
reported to be favourable to Home Rule. Again the
Tories got into hot water. They were like the man who,
while in a state of intoxication, determined to have a
mustard bath. Unfortunately, when he wiped his one
foot, he put it back into the water while he got the other
dried, until he had to call in the aid of a friend to enable
him to get both feet out of the water and wiped dry.
General Buller's evidence before the Cowper Commission
showed that the National League was trusted by the Irish
people, because it had come between them and the
inhuman conduct of the landlords. Indeed, with the
solitary exception of Mr. A. J. Balfour, the Englishmen
appointed by the Tory Government have done much to
bless and not ban the cause of the Irish Nationalists. In
spite, however, of the Cowper Commission and their own
nominees, the Cabinet went on in their misguided course,
and they seemed to emphasize the satire of Lord Byron,
" Down with everything and up with rent." Verdicts
drawn up in Dublin were pronounced by local magistrates

^74

on political offenders. Juries were packed in Sligo and
elsewhere to the exclusion of all Roman Catholics, until
even the Protestant Jurors of the neighbourhood protested
against the treatment dealt out to their Catholic fellow-
townsmen. Pledges made by Cabinet Ministers were
flagrantly violated. The Local Government Bill for
England was brought in and passed, but Ireland was
excluded, though it was definitely promised by Liberal
Unionists that any measure passed for England should
also be extended to Ireland, and though Lord R. Churchill,
as the mouthpiece of the Government, had made a similar
declaration in his place in Parliament, on the authority of
Lord Salisbury and the Tory Cabinet.

The Tories return to Traditional Policy.

In the session of 1887, the Tories threw off all their
disguise and revealed themselves in their ancient character.
The decencies of public promises were ruthlessly dis-
carded, and the Government announced its intention to
introduce another Coercion Act. The eighty-six preceding
ones had failed, an eighty-seventh was to be tried. When
the clauses of this Coercion Bill were printed, many of
the Ministerial supporters stood aghast. The Liberal
Unionists specially were dismayed at the thought of having
to face the constituencies. But on the principle of "in for
a shilling, in for a pound," they quakingly marched up to
the division lobbies. The Bill was called the " Crimes
Act," but the statistics of crime in the country were not
such as to justify the introduction of the measure Crimes
did not amount to one-half the number reached in 1880,
and were only one-third of the number recorded in 1882.
There was an increase between 1884 and 1886, but the
increase was not startling, and did not amount to anything

375

like the increase of some previous years. In 1884 the
number was 762, and in 1886, 1025, and this included
petty larcenies and trivial assaults, such as are frequently
found in English courts, and dismissed or visited either
with a small fine or a few days' imprisonment. In addition,
the first quarter of the year in 1887, viz., the months
immediately preceding the introduction of the Crimes Act,
had fewer crimes recorded in its statistics, than the average
number per quarter during 1886. The evidences of the
judges at the various assizes in the country may be noted
here. Their utterances were made during the Summer
Assizes of 1887, at the very time the Crimes Bill was being
discussed in Parliament.

Evidence of the Judges — Coercion
WITHOUT Crime.

Mr. Justice Holmes at Antrim said that there was
nothing exceptional in any of the cases brought before
him, and that the offences were only such as might be
expected under any circumstances in a thickly populated
community and a large town.

Justice Andrews, at Armagh, said, '* It gives me great
pleasure to congratulate you on the orderly and well-
behaved condition of your important county."

Baron Dowse, at Carlow, said that they ** had a right
to be satisfied with the present condition of things."

Justice Lawson, at Cavan, said that ** He was glad to
observe their duties were of a very light description."

The same kind of testimony was given at the
assizes at Clare, Cork County and City, Donegal, Down,
Fermanagh, Kildare, Kilkenny County, King's County,
Leitrim, Limerick County and City, Londonderry, Long-

31^

ford, Louth, jNIayo, Meath, Monaghan, Roscommon^
Queen's County, Sligo, Tipperary — North and | South,
Tyrone, Waterford County, Westmeath, Wexford, and
Wicklow. At Drogheda, Kilkenny City, and Waterford
City Assizes, the judges were presented with white gloves,
because there were no criminal cases to go before them.
In cases where there were crimes, they were for the most
part ordinary offences — Justice Lawson, at Cavan, called
them " unimportant offences." Justice Johnson, at Cork
County, said, '*The number of cases to go before you is
not large, having regard to this great county, nor in their
character are they very important." Justice O'Brien said,
at Cork City Assizes : " This city is practically and
absolutely free from crime." Justice Murphy said, at
Fermanagh: "Nothing can exceed the peace and quiet
in this, as I trust I may call it, prosperous county ; the
bills to go before you afe only two in number." Similar
statements were made in the other places named. In two
counties, however, the judges animadverted on the increase
of crime, as follows : —

In Galway, the Lord Chief Baron " regretted to say,
the number of cases to go before them was considerable —
far more than was usual in this county. There were twenty-
three cases to be tried, including four cases carried forward
from the last assizes."

In Kerry county, Mr. Justice O'Brien said, ** I need
not say to you that the prominence the County of Kerry
has occupied of late years, in reference to crime, makes its
condition an object of great anxiety and inquiry, and from
means of information afforded to me, including, amongst
other materials, the usual returns presented by the con-
stabulary to the Judge of Assize, it appears that the actual
amount of crime is much less than for the corresponding

377

period last year. The diminution is capable of being
traced through almost all the classes of crime which are
in their own nature necessarily connected with the state of
the county ; in particular the offence which is commonly
known as 'Moonlighting,' and which is -the cause of so
much terror and alarm to the well-disposed in this county,
for a considerable period of time, seems to have almost
entirely disappeared."*

Galway was, then, the only county where crime had
increased, and this was only temporary, and in Kerry,
where the country had been most disturbed, there was
actually an improvement. If the statistics, though, be
compared with the calendar of crimes in England, the
Tory statement that the Bill was intended to suppress
crime falls to the ground.

The Bill against Combinations.

Mr. Gladstone's opposition to the Bill was based on
the objection that this was not a bill against crime, but
against the combination of men for political objects. It
was evidently intended to treat opponents as political
criminals, and to deal with them severely, as though they
had broken the penal laws. Lord Salisbury, in the House
of Lords, admitted Mr. Gladstone's charge, by saying,
" Our position is, that the Land War must cease. We
have offered to the House of Parliament a measure, not
without hesitation, in order to put a stop to certain com-
binations."

This was in strange contradiction to the statement of
Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons, viz., " This was a

Bill to put down crime It was not conflicts

between landlord and tenant they desired to put down, it

* "Coercion without Crime" — pamphlet by J. A. Fox.

378

was not combination they desired to crush." 'The real
fact is, that it was intended first to crush political
opponents, and then to sweep away the Plan of Campaign.

The Plan of Campaign

This necessitates the inquiry, "What was the 'Plan of
Campaign'.?" It was the method supposed necessary in
the interests of the tenant by the refusal of the Tory
Government to approve of the measure of Mr. Parnell for
staying evictions, and the refusal of the landlords to take
that abatement of rents, which the fall of agricultural
prices rendered necessary. The peasantry were at the
mercy of the landlords, and proved the truth of the state-
ment that *'the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."
Many landlords refused to yield to the mild pressure of
Sir M. H. Beach. Men, like Lord Clanricarde, cushioned
in London, insisted upon wringing money from im-
poverished tenants, and urged their agents to evict those
who did not or could not pay. One agent on the estate of
Lord Clanricarde had refused to carry out the evictions,
because he knew the impoverished circumstances of the
tenants ; but soon another agent, with less humanity, was
found to carry out the discreditable and inhuman work.
The Legislature refused to step between tenants and the
various estates and the landlords. They were to be left
exposed to the danger of banishment from homes and
premature death. Mr. John Dillon came to the rescue,
and as he was wishful to prevent injustice, and yet avoid
revolution, he suggested a plan by which, in cases where
the landlords were relentless, the tenants might protect
themselves. After saying that the Plan of Campaign
had been much misunderstood in the country, Mr.
T. P. O'Connor says —

"Like Mr. Parnell's Bill, it has been denounced as a measure
of pure confiscation, and has been represented as a scheme for the
robbing of the landlord of all his rent. As a matter of fact, what
took place under the ' Plan of Campaign ' was, that the landlord
was asked to give a reduction as small, and in many cases smaller,
than would be given by the Land Court. The tenants were gathered
together, and asked, by begging or by borrowing, or by any means,
to collect all their rent, minus the abatement which had been
demanded ; if the landlord accepted the offer, the money was given
to him immediately, and without any abatement whatever. In
cases where the landlords refused, the money was employed for the
protection of the tenants. This would have been an extreme
expedient if the country were in an ordinary condition. But in
Ireland, with all the resources of the Government at the back of
the landlords, whether right or wrong, whether evicting for just or
exorbitant rents, the tenants were perfectly justified in adopting
such an extreme method of self-defence. In any case, the ' Plan of
Campaign' has done good, and has been justified by the action of
the Courts, which in more than one case made reductions larger than
those which had been demanded under the ' Plan of Campaign.' "*

As a matter of policy, this measure may have been
ill advised, but as an expression of humanity it redounds
to the credit of Mr. Dillon. It is said to have alienated
the sympathy of English Liberals from the support of the
Irish movement. Mr. Parnell disclaimed responsibility
for its inception, but would not desert the men who had
arranged it. Many acknowledge it to be an evil, but
it was the lesser of two of them, and it saved tenants
from expulsion from their homes and starvation. It has
never been put into operation except as a last resort, and
in cases where the rents have been manifestly unjust.
Every other method has been tried to soften the obdurate
landlord, before the ' Plan of Campaign' has been adopted.
In many cases the landlords have been compelled to yield,

* " Parnell Movement," p. 290.

38o

and the roofs are still over the heads of hundreds of
families, who, but for Mr. Dillon's scheme, would to-day
be houseless wanderers ; so many more flung into the
seething, living mass, struggling for the barest subsistence
in the overcrowded alleys and courts in our large towns.
It is impossible now to enter into details of these cases.
The Clanricarde case is referred in the Appendix to this
book, and it is dealt with more searchingly by Mr.
Shaw-Lefevre in his letters to the Times. In his book on
" Incidents of Coercion," he deals not only with this case,
but the very similar one on the property of Lord Massarene.
But they are only sample cases. The evictions at Loughrea
are parallelled at Bodyke, Coolgreany, Glenbeigh, and a
number of other places.

Work for the Unemployed Soldiers.

Although the tenants were joint owners under the
dual system of ownership established by Mr. Gladstone's
measures, they were plundered, without mercy, by legal
processes, and flung ruthlessly out of their homes. And
all this because the landlord had raised the tenants' rents,
on their own improvements, and penalised them for their
industry by a sum larger than they could pay in the fall of
agricultural prices. England, at peace with the world, was
called upon to supply soldiers to fight the Irish tenants,
on the thresholds of their homes, and the men who had
driven the Zulus from their kraals, were summoned to
drive the Irish from their hovels. And, as if that were
not sufficient to goad the Irish Party to desperation, an
Assistant Secretary for Ireland was appointed, and one of
the men most obnoxious to Nationalists was given the
post — the late Colonel King-Harman, a rack-renter, and a
renegade Home-Ruler.

38i

The •' Plan of Campaign " was the last desperate
resort of drowning men. It was illegal justice set up to
meet legalised injustice and a Legislature's neglect. That
it violated the Law of Contracts is true, but it was in
harmony with the more sacred law of humanity. The
question may be asked, " Are contracts ever to be broken ?''
Yes, when they violate the fundamental laws of brother-
hood, and are an insult to conscience and God. Is it
lawful, in the sight of Divine Justice, for the child of a
peasant to starve, while the the child of a landlord spends
the rent in riotous living ? It has been said that some of
the tenants were able to pay, but refused ; and that others
would have paid, but were afraid to do so. It may be
true. But, if they had paid, their action would have been
used as a weapon to compel others, who were in poorer
circumstances, to pay and starve, and they would have
been compelled to pay, not out of the profits of the land,
but out of moneys obtained from other sources. The
produce of the land did not produce sufficient to meet the
exorbitant rents.

John Hampden could have paid ship-money, and not
have been compelled to do with one meal less, but he
knew that the tax was an unjust one, and that others,
poorer than himself, could not pay. His glory as a patriot
was, that he identified himself with the citizens less
favourably circumstanced, and he protested and objected
to pay. He fought the battle through the law courts, as
well as on Chalgrove Field. So with the wealthy members
of the Society of Friends, who refused to pay Church
dues ; and so with Wat Tyler, and many others, whose
conflicts made the great epochs of English freedom. A
bill of sale from the Almighty was said to be the only
justification of slavery, and as the slaveholders could not

382

produce this, their trade in human flesh was prohibited by
a nation, impelled by justice and humanity to succour the
weak and enslaved. A deed of gift from the Almighty is the
only grounds on which Irish landlordism can be sustained.
That the " Plan of Campaign " differs somewhat from
Trades Union agitation, may be seen from the fact, that
the one affects unjust contracts in the future, and the other
embraces the iniquitous contracts in the past : but they are
alike in their aim at combining the strong and weak of
one class to resist stronger individuals of another class,
who were exacting in their claims, and unsympathetic in
their dealings with men, whose individual helplessness had
made them previously an easy prey.

Characteristics of the Crimes Bill.

The characteristics of the Crimes Bill are intolerable
to those that have imbibed the Spirit of Freedom. When
first introduced, it aimed at one of the fundamental bases
of civilized justice. It provided for the removal of
prisoners from Ireland to the Central Criminal Court in
England, and thereby would have utterly destroyed the
principle of trying accused persons by those belonging to
their own nation. To bring Irishmen to be tried by
Englishmen, was repugnant to the majority of English
people, and the opposition was so great, that, much to the
regret of the Government, they were compelled to drop
the obnoxious clause.

The power of resident magistrates was extended, and
political prisoners were to be brought before them for
summary jurisdiction. The magistrates, removable at
pleasure by the authorities of Dublin Castle, were to be
the judges of what constituted intimidation, conspiracy,
or combination for the purpose of preventing the law from

383

taking effect. These magistrates were not usually lawyers,
or men skilled in legal arrangements, but were under the
guidance of the Crown Prosecutor, the coach sent down
by the Executive at Dublin Castle. The greater the sub-
serviency of the resident magistrate to the Crown Officials,
the more he was qualified for his post. The liberties of
the whole nation were, therefore, placed in the grasp of
removable and inefficient magistrates, whose chief quali-
fications often were that they were broken-down officers
of the army or navy, or else were the impecunious relatives
of noblemen, who, by securing their appointments, saved
their own pockets, at the expense of Ireland's mis-
government.

Actions, which are not crimes in England, and were
not crimes in Ireland before the passing of the Act, have
been made crimes by the Tory Party, for the sake of
crushing political opposition. The measure provided for
the prosecution of the Press, the gagging of free speech,
the imprisonment of those who sold proscribed news-
papers, abolition of trial by jury, and for the re-imposition
of private examinations, by which evidence should be
extorted from unwilling witnesses, under the pain of fine
or imprisonment : in short, the adoption of a method of
inquiry similar to that which made the Star Chamber of the
Stuarts so notorious and so offensive to the nostrils of Puritan
and Covenanter — the fathers of our modern freedom. To
secure support to a paternal government by the strangling
of those rights and privileges which are dearest to English-
men, and to include in the Bill the idea of perpetuity was
a huge mistake. To found English government on batons
and bayonets, recalled to many the phrase of Count
Cavour, that, " You can do anything with bayonets except
sit upon them." To give a nation "a. stone for bread" is

384

in itself one of the greatest crimes that can stain the
conduct of any administration.

The Crimes Bill.

When the Bill was introduced, the following were
among the most important of the clauses, and though the
section dealing with a change of venue from Ireland to
the Central Criminal Court in England was dropped, yet
the fact that such a clause was proposed, shows to what
extent the Government was prepared to over-ride the
rights and sentiments of the Irish nation : —

pRSLIMINARY INQUIRY.

Clause I: (Section i). — Where the Attorney-General for Ireland
believes that any offence, to which this section applies, has been
committed in a proclaimed district, he may direct a resident magis-
trate to hold an inquiry under this section, and thereupon such
resident magistrate may, although no person may be charged before
him with the commission of such crime, sit at a police-court or
petty sessional court-house or police-station, and examine on oath,
concerning such offence, any witness appearing before him, and may
take the deposition of such witness, and, if be sees cause, may bind
such witness by recognisance to appear and give evidence at the
next petty sessions, or when called upon, within three months from
the date of the recognisance.

Clause I. (Section 3). — A witness, examined under this section,
shall not be excused from answering any question on the ground
that the answer thereto may criminate or tend to criminate himself,
but any statement made by any person in answer to a question put
to him on any examination under this section shall not, except in
case of an indictment or other criminal proceeding for perjury, be
admissible in evidence against him in any proceeding civil or
criminal.

Clause I. (Section 5). — The offences to which this section applies
are any felony or misdemeanour, and any offence punishable under
this Act.

385

Summary Jurisdiction.

Clause 2. — Any person who shall commit any of the following
offences in a proclaimed district, may be prosecuted before a court
of summary jurisdiction, under this Act : —

(i). Any person, who shall take part in any criminal con-
spiracy to compel or induce any persons either not to fulfil his
or their legal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy
any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or
persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation,
or to interfere with the administration of the law.

(2). Any person, who shall wrongfully and without legal
authority use violence or intimidation (a) to or towards any
person or persons, with a view to cause any person or persons,
either to do any act which such person or persons has or
have a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from
doing any act which such person or persons has or have a legal
right to do ; or (b) to or towards any person or persons in con-
sequence either of his or their having done any act which he
or they had a legal right to do, or of his or their having
abstained from doing any act which he' or they had a legal right
to abstain from doing.

(3). {a) Any person who shall take part in any riot or
unlawful assembly ; or {b) within twelve months after the
■ execution of any writ of possession of any 'house or land, shall
wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or
land, or any part thereof; or (c) shall assault or wilfully and
unlawfully resist or obstruct any sheriff, constable, bailiff,
process-server, or other minister of the law, when in the
execution of his duty, or shall assault him in consequence of
such execution.

(4) Any person who shall commit any offence punishable
under the Whiteboy Acts as defined by this Act.

(5) Any person who by words or acts shall incite, solicit,
encourage, or persuade any other person to commit an}' of the
offences hereinbefore mentioned.

386

Special Jury and Removal of Trial.

Clause 3. — Where an indictment for a crime committed in a
proclaimed district has been found against a defendant, or a
defendant has been committed for trial for such crime, and the trial
is to be by jury before a court in Ireland other than the court of
quarter sessions, the High Court shall, on an application by or on
behalf of the Attorney-General for Ireland or a defender, make an
order as of course that the trial of the defendant or defendants, if
more than one, shall be by a special jury.

Clause 4 (Section i). — Whereas it is expedient to amend the
law relating to the place of trial of offences committed in Ireland
for securing more fair and impartial trials, and for relieving jurors
from danger to their lives, property, and business, be it enacted :
Where an indictment for a crime committed in a proclaimed district
has been against a defendant, or a defendant has been committed
for trial for such crime, and the trial is to be at a court of assize for
any county in a proclaimed district, or at any court of quarter
sessions for any county or borough in a proclaimed district, the High
Court, on an application by or on behalf of the Attorney-General
for Ireland, and upon his certificate that he believes that a more
fair and impartial trial can be had at a court of assize in some
county to be named in the certificate, shall make an order as of
course that a trial shall be had at a court of assize in the county
named in the certificate.

The defendant, 'or any defendant, if more than one, may in- a
prescribed manner, and within a prescribed time, apply to the High
Court to discharge or vary any such order for the removal of a
trial, upon the ground that the trial may be more fairly and
impartially had in a county other than the county named in the
order of removal, and thereupon the High Court may order that
the trial shall be had in that county in which it shall appear that
the trial can be most fairly and impartially had.

Clause 4 (Section 2). — When the crime committed as aforesaid
within a proclaimed district with which the defendant is charged is
(a) murder or manslaughter, (b) attempt to murder, (c) aggravated
crime of violence against the person, (d) arson by statute or
common law, (e) breaking into, firing at or into, or otherwise

387

assaulting or injuring a dwellinghouse, however such crime may
be described in the indictment, the High Court shall, upon a
certificate signed by both the Attorney-General for England and the
Attorney-General for Ireland that a more fair and impartial trial
can be had in England than in Ireland, or that, having regard to the
safety of jurors, their lives, property, or business, a satisfactory
trial cannot be had in Ireland, make an order as of course that a
trial shall be had in some county in England named in the certificate
or in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in
England or at the Central Criminal Court in London where such
division or court is specified in the certificate in that behalf.

The defendant or any defendant, if more than one, may in the
prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, apply to the High
Court to discharge or vary any such order for the removal of a trial
upon the ground that the trial can be more fairly and impartially
had in some county in Ireland, than in the county named in the
order of removal, or in the Queen's Bench Division of the High
Court of Justice in England, or at the Central Criminal Court, as
the case may be, and that a satisfactory trial can be had in Ireland,
and thereupon the High Court, if they are satisfied that a satis-
factory trial can be had without danger to the jurors, their lives,
property, or business, and that the trial can be more fairly and
impatially had in Ireland, as alleged, may order that the trial shall
be had in any county in Ireland in which they are of opinion that
the trial can be most fairly and impartially had.

Dangerous Association and Arms.

Clause 6. — If the Lord-Lieutenant is satisfied that any associa-
tion (a) formed for the commission of crimes, or (b) carrying on
operations for or by the commission of crimes, or (c) encouraging or
aiding persons to commit crimes, or (d) promoting or exciting to acts
of violence or intimidation, or (e) interfering with the administration
of the law, or disturbing the maintenance of law and order (in this
Act referred to as a dangerous association) exists in any part of
Ireland, the Lord-Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy
Council, may from time to time by proclamation declare that the
enactments of this Act relating to dangerous associations shall come
into force.

388

Clause 7. — From and after the date of such special proclamation,
and as long As the same contines unrevoked or unexpired, the Lord-
Lieutenant in Council may, from time to time by order, to be
published in the prescribed manner, prohibit or suppress in any
district specified in the order any association which he believes to
be a dangerous association.

Clause 8. — {a) The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881, as
amended by the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Continuance Act,
1886, shall continue in force for five years from the passing of this
Act, and until the end of the then next session of Parliament, (b)
A warrant under the said Act directing a search for arms or
ammunition in houses, buildings, or places in a proclaimed district,
as defined by that Act, shall be valid in law notwithstanding that
the houses, buildings, or places to be searched are not specified
therein further than as being houses, buildings, or places situated in
a specified townland or municipal ward.

Provision as to Special Jury and Removal of Trial.

Clause g. — Where under this Act a trial is had by a special
jury, the special jurors shall be taken by ballot in the manner
provided by the 19th section of the Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act,
1876, from all the jurors upon the panel returned by the Sheriff
from the special jurors' book.

Clause 10 (Section i). — If an order for the removal of the trial
of a crime to any county in England or Ireland, or to the Queen's
Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England, or to the
Central Criminal Court, has been made under this Act before the
indictment is found, such crime may be inquired of by a grand jury
of, and may be heard and determined in the county named in the
order of removal, or the Queen's Bench Division, or the Central
Criminal Court, as the case may be, in like manner as if the crime
had been committed in such county, or in the county of Middlesex,
or within the Central Criminal Court district, as the case may be ;
and if the order is made* after the indictm.ent is found, such crime
may be heard and determined as if the indictment had been found
in the court to which the trial is removed.

Clause 10 (Section 2). — In either case the defendant may be
convicted and sentenced as if the crime had been committed in

389

the county named in the order of removal, or in the County of
Middlesex, or in the Central Criminal Court district, as the case
may be, but the sentence of the court shall be carried into effect as
if he had been tried in the county in which he would have been
tried if the order had not been made, and the defendant shall, if
necessary, be removed accordingly, in pursuance of an order of the
court in which he has been tried made for the purpose.

Clause II (Section i). — A person prosecuted before a court of
summary jurisdiction under this Act shall be liable, on conviction,
to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not
exceeding six months, and shall have the same right of appeal as he
would have under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts in the case of any
other summary conviction.

Clause 14. — There shall be paid out of moneys provided by
Parliament, such allowances to officers and other persons acting in
pursuance of this Act, and such expenses incurred in reference to
any' court exercising jurisdiction under this Act, and such expenses
of persons charged, counsel, and witnesses payable in pursuance of
this Act, as the Lord-Lieutenant, with the approval of the
Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, may from time to time
direct.

Clause 16. — Any powers or jurisdiction conferred by this Act
on any Court or authority in relation to any trial, offence, or matter,
shall be deemed in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other
power or jurisdiction of any court or authority subsisting at com-
mon law or by Act of Parliament in relation to such trial, offence,
or matter ; provided that no person shall be punished twice for the
same offence.

Clause 18. — An agreement or combination which, under the
Trade Union Acts 1871 and 1876, or the Conspiracy and Protection
of Property Act, 1875, is legal, shall not, nor shall any act done in
pursuance of any such agreement or combination, be deemed to be
an offence against the provisions of this Act respecting conspiracy,
intimidation, and dangerous associations.

Clause 19 gives the definitions of the Act, and the short title of
the Act is set forth in clause 20 as follows : — This Act may be cited
as the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887.

390
Mr. Clancy on *'A Year of Unionist Coercion."
Mr. J. J. Clancy, M.P., has done good service by
writing a series of articles entitled *'A Year of Unionist
Coercion." He shows the way in which . Mr. Balfour
carried out the provisions of the Crimes Bill, and that the
measure conceived in bitterness was administered with
harshness and severity. People were prosecuted for the
following offences, viz. : — assault, riot, obstruction to
officers of the law, intimidation, taking illegal possession
of houses, attending meetings of suppressed branches of
the League, selling newspapers containing reports of the
meetings of suppressed branches, publishing such reports,
cheering or groaning in crowds, inducing or compelling
people not to deal with or work for others.

The measure for which urgency was demanded in. the
House of Commons was not put into operation on any
extensive scale for six weeks. Three months passed before
a single case of boycotting was dealt with. The Bill was
used as a weapon against old people and children, and
newsvendors striving to obtain their scanty livelihood in
the streets, were made to feel the sting of this coercive
measure, '* Booing " Mr. Balfour's name was a crime.
Cheering Mr. Gladstone's name was regarded as intimida-
tion. Whistling at policemen was declared to be an
obstruction of the law.

How THE Bill was Administered.

Mr. J. R. Cox, M.P., made a speech in which he urged
the people to shun outrages as one would shun poison, but
the Removable Incompetents convicted him for incitement
to crime. In cases of appeal from Lower Courts, the
appellants were punished for daring to appeal against the
verdicts of these magistrates by having their sentences

391

increased. Men who appealed, and pending tne appeal
should have been at liberty, were arrested as they left the
Court on other charges. Men were sentenced to double
terms of imprisonment for two portions of the same
speech. To prevent an appeal which could have been
entered had the sentence been for two months, the accused
were sentenced at the same Court to separate terms of a
month's imprisonment. Men were therefore in gaol for
two months, but were tricked out of the right of appeal by
separate sentences. The police called upon shopkeepers
to ask for what they did not require, in order to found a
charge against those whom they knew would refuse to sell
to them. Incitement to crime was thus openly indulged
in by Magistrates and Constabulary. Bakers and publicans
were imprisoned because they objected to sell bread and
beer to the police. Men who refused horses and cars to
the Constabulary when they wished to suppress a meeting
of the National League, a few miles off, were imprisoned.
They had supplied cars for taking afflicted persons to
lunatic asylums, but refused to help in the suppression of
the people's combination. Blacksmiths refused to shoe
horses, and were convicted and sent to gaol.

A Landlord Inciting to Crime.

Mr. Leader, a landlord in County Cork, acknowledged
in evidence that he went to certain individuals whom he
had never bought anything of previously, because he knew
they were hostile to him and would refuse to supply him
with goods. In his evidence against them, he admitted
that he had a standing quarrel with them, that he could
have got the food elsewhere, that he did not need it, that
he offered no money in payment, that he consulted the
police before he visited the shops, and that he went for

392

the sole purpose of getting up a prosecution. That is, he
went, backed up by the Crimes Bill and the police, to
tempt these shopkeepers and incite them to become
criminals in the eyes of the law.

When public-houses were closed at Milton Milbay, at
the request of the parish priest, to avoid disturbances
during a time of excitement, the police went from house
to house demanding to be sold drink, and twenty-four
publicans were convicted and sentenced to a month's hard
labour for refusing to sell. In cross-examination, it was
admitted that the drink was not needed by the police, as
there was plenty of refreshment in the barracks.

A bogus case of boycotting was trumpeted in the
English newspapers to excite the indignation of Christian
people. A Protestant Minister in Tulla was held up as an
object of sympathy because he had been compelled to nail
up his wife's coffin. But a question from the Bench
extorted from him an acknowledgement that he had never
asked anyone else to do it.

How Mr. Balfour kept a Pledge not to curtail
THE Liberty of the Press.

When the Crimes Bill was introduced, Mr. Balfour
announced that he did not intend to interfere with the
liberty of the press. As soon as Parliament ceased to
sit in the same year, he proceeded to violate this pledge by
prosecuting Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P., the Lord Mayor
of Dublin, the proprietor of the Nation newspaper ; and
Mr. William O'Brien, the editor of United Ireland: for
publishing reports of meetings held by suppressed branches
of the League. But as these men published their papers
in Dublin, the case had to be tried by a magistrate who
was not removable at will by the authorities of Dublin

393

Castle, and he dismissed the charge on the ground raised
by Mr. T. M. Healy, M.P., the counsel for the defence,
viz., that the Prosecution should prove that the meetings
had actually been held. The Crown lawyers appealed to
the High Court, and were successful. Mr. O'Donel, the
Dublin magistrate, was therefore compelled to sentence
to two months' imprisonment a Lord Mayor of the City,
whom he respected for his character and work. He
mitigated the severity of the sentence as much as he could
by making Mr. Sullivan a first-class misdemeanant. This
act is in contrast with the sentences of removable magis-
trates acting under the direction of Dublin Castle, which
branded the prisoners sentenced by them as though they
were common felons. Mr. William O'Brien was let off on
this charge, because he was being assailed and imprisoned
on other grounds, in another part of the country. Mr.
Walsh, of the Wexford People; Mr. Alderman Hooper, M.P.,
of the Cork Herald; Mr. Edward Harrington, M.P., of the
Kerry Sentinel; Mr. P. A. Hugh (Mayor of Sligo), of the
Sligo Champion : were all assailed, and, with one exception,
imprisoned as common criminals. At one time, a larger
number of the representatives of the people were in
prison than at any time in any country, since the French
Revolution.

The Crown versus Newsboys.
The police watched the sales of the newsvendor, and
acting on the the presumption that a news' seller should
know the contents of the paper he hawks for sale, the
Crown prosecuted a number of them. Mr. Clancy gives
the following cases : —

The case of Mr. Denis M'Namara exhibits a course of petty
persecution which has but few parallels. We find (i) that on the

394

26th November, 1887, this respectable man was convicted at Ennis
of the "crime" of selling copies of United Irelard, and sentenced
therefore to seven days' imprisonment ; (2) that on the 24th
December, at the same place, he was convicted of the same "crime"'
and sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour ; (3)
that at the same place on the 7th January, 1888, he was prosecuted
for displaying in his window a transparency representing a harp and
shamrocks surmounted by the motto " God save Ireland," and fined
£2 ; (4) that, apparently to ruin his business as a grocer, police were
told off to stand outside his house for the purpose of taking down,
as far as possible, the names and addresses of all who went into and
out of his shop ; and (5) that on one occasion — the i6th December,
1887 — the police actually entered the poor man's house, ransacked
his shop and every one of his private apartments, and wound up
their raid by seizing and carrying off — of course, without payment —
thirty dozen copies of United Ireland ! Such occurrences, in this age,
may well appear incredible to Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welsh-
men ! but, unfortunately, they are not unfamiliar occurrences in
Ireland ; and Mr. M'Namara was not by any means the only victim
last winter of such vindictive, if not absolutely lawless tyranny.
Here it may be mentioned, as additional evidence of the spirit in
which Mr. Balfour has gone to work in these matters, that Mr.
O'Rourke, the newsvendor of Tralee, was prosecuted and sent to
prison for a month, almost immediately after his wife had died,
leaving behind her a large family of helpless young children.

Mr. Flynn, M.P., laid the following case before the
House of Commons —

"Dennis Desmond (young lad), who refused to sell a policeman
a copy of United Ireland, arrested by Sergeant Kennedy, and
detained for a short time in Bridewell ; Dennis M'Carthy (youug
lad), refused to sell a copy of the Cork Examiner to Police-sergeant
Power, arrested by Sergt. Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained
there for some time; John Radley (young lad), refused to sell a
copy of United Ireland and Cork Examiner to policeman, arrested by
Sergeant Power, taken to Bridewell and detained there for some
time ; Cornelius Coakley (young lad), arrested for refusing to sell to
a policeman a copy of United Ireland and Cork Exrminer, by Sergeant

395

Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained there for some time ;
Patrick Bradley (young lad), arrested under circumstances similar
to the above by Sergeant Power; Patrick Carleton (young lad),
refused to sell a copy of Cork Herald to policeman, arrested by
Sergeant O'Leary, and lodged in Bridewell for some time ; Michael
Murphy (an old man of seventy), refused to sell a copy of the
Examiner to policeman on beat, and the policeman kicked the old
man's box about, scattered his papers, cuffed the old man, and
warned him against selling the paper."

Mr. Balfour vainly tried to explain theses cases away,
by saying that these were prosecuted for drunkenness,
street obstruction, and other offences against the law.

Government Assaults on Free Speech.

The rights of free speech were also assailed. Mr.
John Dillon, for a speech delivered at Tullyallen, in the
county of Louth, was convicted and sentenced to two
concurrent terms of six months' imprisonment. The
county of Louth had not been proclaimed under the
second section of the Coercion Act, when Mr. Dillon
made his speech, but the county was afterwards proclaimed,
and the section was made to act retrospectively, so as to
deprive Mr. Dillon of the benefits of a jury. It was
admitted that he used the following words : —

"What used they do to traitors in the olden times ? They used
to shoot them. Well, I wanted to turn our people away from that
course. I wanted to place before the people of Ireland a Christian,
a civilised, a moral plan, by which, if they adhered to it bravely,
they could put down this infamous system of rack-renting and
treachery, to which the people of Ireland have been so long
subjected."

Mr. William O'Brien at Mitchelstown.
Mr. William O'Brien's crime was to use his own words,
that of " holding the arm of an executioner, when he knew

396

that a reprieve was actually arriving at the gates." In the
House of Commons he justified his conduct as follows : —

"There was just one hope for these poor people in all the world.
The Northwich election was pending ; it was coming off in a few
days. Irish evictions were becoming an awkward topic for the
Tory candidate. The story of Glenbeigh and of Bodyke was
beginning fo horrify and revolt the English mind. I knew that
Tory statesmen would not scruple to lend their troops to perpetrate
this wrong if it could be done without commotion, but I knew also,
or guessed at all events, that they would scruple to do anything that
would make them lose the Northwich election. I had not a
moment for consultation with anybody in the world. On my own
responsibility, and actually and absolutely on my own responsibility,
without consultation with anybody, and on the spur of the moment,
there and then in the open square of Mitchelstown, and in the
hearing of a number of policemen, I did tell the people that if
under those special circumstances those evictions were carried out
before the Land Bill, which was just almost law then, could become
law, but it would not be a vindication of the law, but it would
be an outrageous evasion of the law, and that they would be
justified in the eyes of God and man in defending their homes
by every honest means in their power against such an infamy.
I may have been right or I may have been wrong. I have
no doubt on the point in my own mind, and I have not been in the
least degree inclined to complain that I should suft^'er in reference to
it. I have no doubt that technically it was illegal for me to save the
people, as it was legal for the landlord for a few days more to ruin
them just as — I daresay it would be, strictly speaking, a breach of
the law to hold the arm of the executioner, even if you knew and
he knew that a reprieve was actually arriving at the gates."

At the trial the warrant was not filled up, and the
Recorder stated that until that was done Mr. O'Brien had
liberty to leave the court, but Captain Stokes, the Divisional
Magistrate, defied the Judge, and on his own responsibility
detained Mr. O'Brien, and was not repremandcd for his
conduct.

397

Mr. J. R. Cox., M.P., delivered a speech to his own
constituents at Ennis, and was sentenced to four months
imprisonment. The following extract includes the state-
ments for which he was condemned : —

" I would implore the young men of Clare — and I wish my voice
could reach the ears and hearts of every young man to-night, and
this Lisdoonarva case may point a moral if it cannot adorn a sad
tale for them. Let them shun outrages and avoid the tempter to
evil deeds as they would shun Satan himself, and if for no holier
and higher motive, at least for the selfish motive of their own safety.
There were foolish people in the country who thought revenge
should be wreaked for every petty act of local tyranny. I do not
think the common sense of the country will accept their opinions
and views against the opinions and views of our great leader, Mr.
Parnell, or the greatest statesman of modern times, Mr. Gladstone.
Wherever and whenever you meet with such men, avoid and shun
them, for, believe me, theirs is no good purpose. The louder they
boast of their patriotism, and what they are prepared to do and
dare, the more reason have you to shun them, for, believe me, nine
out of every ten of such men are in the pay of our enemies. We
have now the great Liberal party of England at our back, with
their great leader Mr. Gladstone ; we have the English democracy
with us, as will be told you in a few minutes by Mr. Conybeare|
With such allies, nothing can stop or stay our march to liberty, save
and except the commission of outrage, which must inevitably drive
our allies from our side, and bring joy, hope, and satisfaction to the
hearts of the miserable gang of Coercionists — the Cullinane Balfour
now in office. Hearken then to the advice of the great leader who
never yet gave wrong counsel or advice, follow the counsel of the
veteran leader of the Liberal party, be guilty of no crime or out-
rage. Follow the open and Constitutional agitation, which has
almost brought us to the goal of our long-lost right. Adhere to the
teachings and doctrines of the National League — but I forgot, my
friends, Balfour says the League has been proclaimed in Clare. I
ask you is it ? (loud shouts of ' No ! ') I wish Balfour was there to
listen to that thundering shout ; he would know the value you place
on his proclamations."

398

The constable who took down the speech for which
Mr. Sheehy, M.P., was imprisoned acknowledged that he
could not keep up with the speaker — though he spoke
slowly, that he was often two or three sentences behind,
that he had to skip over sentences every now and then to
start afresh, that he often missed sentences altogether, and
that he only wrote down one-fourth or one-fifth of the
speech.

Mr. J. W. Lane, M.P., spoke to his constituents and
to the landlord of the district. The man supposed to be
specially aimed at, expressed his entire satisfaction with the
speech, and offered to leave to Mr. Lane the settlement of
the dispute between him and his tenants. He — Mr. Hayes
— said at the trial of Mr. Lane that he had not suffered in
any way from the speech, that he had never complained to
anyone connected with the Crown on account of it, and
that he would not object to the " Plan of Campaign " on
his property because he could get more money from his
tenants through it than without it. But Mr. Lane was
convicted for delivering the speech and was sentenced to
a month's imprisonment.

Mr. Clancy says :— " Mr. Flynn, M.P., was sentenced
to three weeks' imprisonment as a common criminal, for a
speech in which he actually advised a body of tenantry
amongst his constituents to " shun crime and outrage as
they would shun prison," and in which the worst passage,
according to the " Removable " who pronounced judgment,
recommended that body of tenantry to " follow the advice
of a great English orator and stick firm to their just and
lawful combination." Mr. T. J. Condon, M. P., was
was sent to goal, first for a fortnight, virtually for a speech
which not he, but another, Mr. T. M. Healy, M.P. deliver-
ed in Mr. Condon's absence ; and then for a month for ad-

399

vising the people of Mitchelstown not to pay what is known
as ** the Mitchelstown Blood Tax," — a form of resistance
to oppression which Mr. Matthews, the present Home Sec-
retary, recently expressed something like approval in the
House of Commons, in the case of the Welsh resistance to
tithes. Mr. O'Brien, M.P., for North Monaghan, was
sentenced to four months' imprisonment for having, in the
middle of a speech in couuty Kilkenny, humourously re-
marked, in response to a person who had handed him a
glass of water, " Here's to the downfall of Smithwick " —
a remark which the " Removable " magistrate who sen-
tenced him took care to state that he did not for a moment
mean to interpret as an incitement to any physical violence
whatever to the said Smithwick ! Father McFadden, the
saviour of famine-swept Gweedore ; Father Stephens, the
young patriot curate of Donegal ; Mr. Blane, M.P.; Mr.
John Redmond, M.P.; Mr. J. J. O'Kelly, M.P.; and many
other less conspicuous men in various parts of Ireland have
been prosecuted, and in most cases convicted, on various
preposterous criminal charges, for speeches, some of which
may have been technically illegal, but not one of which, as
we have said, might not be delivered in England, Scotland,
or Wales amidst the applause of thousands of honest men."

Mr. Balfour's Triumphs.

Three men shouted at another from behind a wall and
were sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment for intimida-
tion, and yet the man thus intimidated swore that no
violence had been used against him, and that he had not;
been frightened at the shouting. Four persons on
October 14th, 1887, were prosecuted by the Crown at
Taghmon in the County of Wexford for " intimidation and
unlawful assembly." The male prisioners were of the

400

ages of fifteen, thirteen, and eleven years respectively,
while the fourth was a girl. Their crime was that they had
blown horns and shouted "emergency man" and "land
grabber," at a man who worked on a farm from which a
tenant had been evicted. He swore that he had not been
frightened by the noise, nor interrupted in his work. An
alibi was proved by a schoolmaster in the case of one of
defendants, and the other three were sent to goal for four-
teen days. Two men were imprisoned in King's County
because when going home from a fair they shouted when
passing the house of an unpopular man. For these shouts one
was sent to prison for a fortnight, and the other for a week.
A caretaker of Lord Clanricarde's was purchasing
goods at a shop, when Peter Kelly saw him, and refused to
buy goods at the same place. Peter Kelly was sent to gaol
for three weeks. Two men in King's county were charged
with intimidating a bailiff. They had whistled at him.
But they escaped imprisonment because they were whistling
for a dog. At Athenry a man was put upon his trial for
intimidation because his childrert had groaned at a local
land agent. The man was acquitted, but pending his trial
he was kept a week in Gal way gaol and was brought to the
court in handcuffs. While a man was being brought to
gaol for resisting eviction, a crowd which included the
chairman of the Town Board and the leading men of the
pl'ace met to show sympathy with the evicted tenant. They
shouted three cheers for Mr. Gladstone and hooted the
police. She Stationmaster at whose station the mcident
occurred said that there ^vas no riot, and that the crowd
was " good-natured and peaceful." The cheerers for jNIr.
Gladstone were sentenced to imprisonment varying from
six weeks to three months with hard labour.*

* Clancy.

401

Mr. Shaw-Lefevre's Speech at Bradford.

The Right Hon. Shaw-Lefevre in a speech at
Bradford, recited an account of the number of people who
were sent to prison for one case. He said : —

Since the Coercion Act came into effect there had been some-
thing Hke 1700 prosecutions, and no fewer than 1200 persons had
been sent to prison. Among them there were twenty-three members
of ParHament, fifteen priests, many editors of newspapers, and not
a few women and children. It was his conviction that when they
examined these cases, and traced them to their causes, it would be
found that without exception they had arisen from disputes between
landlord and tenant in respect of arrears of unjust rents. There
was a kind of sequence about these coercion cases which was very
remarkable. Many of them were connected in groups, and all arose,
as a rule, out of some great case of dispute between landlord and
tenant. What happened was this. In the first place a landlord
began to evict his tenants on a great scale. Then the tenants resist-
ed, because they found that it was only by resisting that they could
call the attention of the English public to their case, and so have
their claims recognised. Then, under the Coercion Act many of
them were arrested and sent to prison for resisting. Either the
members for the district or some popular Member of Parliament
came down and held a meeting for the purpose of expressing
sympathy with the evicted people. That was declared to be illegal,
and their member or members were arrested and sent to prison.
Then the people were sent to prison for being present at the meeting.
Next, at the trial of these people, further demonstrations took place
which the police chose to call disturbances Then another batch of
people were evicted and sent to prison. Then on the way to prison
there was another demonstration, and the police chose to call that
an illegal meeting, and they prosecuted another batch of people for
being present. Then finally the popular man or the priests came out of
prison, and then there were demonstrations once more, an impromptu
meeting was held, and the police chose to call that an illegal meeting,
and put more people in prison. He could give them twenty
illustrations if necessary of this kind of sequence, but he would
content himself with two,

The first was with reference to Lord Clanricarde's case. He
did not propose to go over the old story of Lord Clanricarde and
his tenants. He had told it before in Bradford, in the public Press,
and in the House of Commons, and he stood by every word that he
had said before. No one had ever yet been found to deny it, and no
man in the House of Commons, speaking on behalf of the Govern-
ment, had ventured to deny it. Every one knew that the dispute
arose on account of the unreasonable conduct of Lord Clanricarde
in refusing that abatement of rent which all his neighbours were
making, and which his own agent advised him to make. Everyone
knew that evictions followed, and that the action of Lord Clanricarde
had been unjust, and that while on their parts the tenants had been
willing at any time to settle on reasonable terms, such as other land-
lords conceded. Lord Clanricarde to this day had never made a
reasonable offer. But what he wanted to refer to was the number of
people who had been sent to prison on account of that one case, and
the circumstances under which they had been sent to prison. When
evictions first began the tenants resisted, and seventy-five of them,
young men of good character, were sent to Sligo, and there, by
means of packed juries, were prosecuted, condemned, and sent to
prison for eighteen months with hard labour. Shortly afterwards,
Mr. Wm. O'Brien desired to hold a meeting to express sympathy
with the men. His meeting was proclaimed, and in order to hold a
meeting he was compelled to hold it at midnight, at Woodford, so as
to elude the authorities. The meeting was held, and twelve persons
were prosecuted for being present at it who were merely in the
crowd, and who took no actual part in the proceedings. And when
some of them came out of prison, after having served a month's
hard labour, an impromptu meeting of 400 or 500 people was held
to welcome them home. Twelve of these persons were prosecuted and
sentenced, some to six weeks' and some to three months' hard labour,
for being present at the supposed illegal meeting. Shortly after-
wards further convictions took place, and another batch of eight
were sent to prison for resisting the police.

Then Mr. Wilfrid Blunt went to Woodford and endeavoured
to hold a meeting to express sympathy with the prisoners, and he
was prosecuted and sent to prison as a common criminal for doing it.
Other evictions shortly afterwards took place, and other persons

403

were sent to prison for resisting, and then their humble servant went
there, and put his hand into the hornets' nest of coercion ; but,
unfortunately, he was able to pull it out again without damage.
Not very long afterwards Mr. W. O'Brien desired to hold another
meeting in the same district, to express sympathy with the tenants
of this property, and also to demonstrate that the National League
still existed in that district as an important institution. The
meeting was proclaimed, and Mr. O'Brien and twelve other
persons who were present were prosecuted, and but for a
technical difficulty they would have been put in gaol.
Lastly, and only last week, as he had already stated, further
evictions on a wholesale plan were carried out, and thirty or
forty more persons had been sent to prison. If they would count
up the numbers which he had mentioned they would find that in this
one case alone i6o persons had gone to prison, and all had gone, in
his opinion, unjustly. He did not believe that if these persons had
been tried by a fair jury in any part of Ireland, or even England,
any one of them would have been sent to gaol. He would mention
another case which he came across during his visit to Ireland.
While in that country he went to Miltown Malbay, in the county of
Clare. The town had only 1300 inhabitants, but he found that no
fewer than fifty-four persons in it had been prosecuted, and forty of
them had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. In nearly
all these cases there had been refusals to supply goods to one or two
landlords and one landlady in the district, and to the police, and
when he came further to trace the cause of these refusals he found
that they arose from unjust evictions by these landlords and this
landlady. The lady's rents were probably more excessive than any
other rents in the country — they were 100 per cent, above the
Government valuation. Some time ago, in the bad times, this lady
evicted fourteen of her tenants. This caused a great feeling of
indignation throughout the whole district — as well it might — and
consequently the people unanimously, but without concert or con-
spiracy, determined to have nothing to do with the lady. Her own
servants, without the invitation or the desire of anybody, left her.
The tradespeople of the place who had been in the habit of supply-
ing her declined to supply her any longer, although, of course, it was
very much to their interest to continue their supplies. Action of

404

this kind might be wrong, and they might under certain circumstances
deplore it. If it were a conspiracy on the part of a few people for
the purpose of ruining and injuring another, then it was undoubtedly
criminal and wrong ; but if this action was the result of the indig-
nation of the whole district, without concert or conspiracy, then,
however much they might deplore it, it was certainly not criminal,
and he did not see why they should deplore it any more than the
unjust evictions which gave rise to it. He was bound to say that
this lady was an extremely plucky and determined woman, and she
engaged servants from another part of Ireland, and set up a store to
provide her horses and servants with all they wanted ; and apparently
things went on not amiss. But when the Coercion Act was passed
she sent police for goods that she did not want, selecting for the
purpose persons whom she thought it desirable to send to prison,
and when the tradespeople refused to supply her they were prosecuted.
She sent her horses to three or foui blacksmiths, three of whom she
had never before employed, and the other she had not employed for
six years. She demanded them to shoe the animals, and when they
refused she had them prosecuted and sent to prison for a month's
hard labour. But he was now coming to a more extraordinary part of
the case. In connection with one of these batches of prosecutions, a
parish priest had reason to believe that the country people would go
into the town in great numbers in order to make a demonstration, and
he was informed that the police, under the orders of Mr. Roche,
would not be unwilling to avail themselves of that opportunity to
bring about a conflict between themselves and the people. Accord-
ingly, on the Sunday before these prosecutions took place the priest
urged the country people not to go into the town on the day of the
trial, and, also with the object of avoiding trouble, he asked the shop-
keepers in the town to close their shops during the trial. They
followed his advice, and closed their shops from eleven till half-past
two o'clock — the time during which the trial took place. Would
they (the audience believe it ? — the police took that opportunity of
getting up prosecutions against these people. They went to twenty-
six shops — apparently in that town almost every shop had a licence
to sell spirits — and knocked at the doors, and asked the shopkeepers
to sell them spirits. The shopkeepers refused, and the police
prosecuted them, and they were all convicted and sentenced to one

405

month's imprisonment each with hard labour. But this was not all.
A few days afterwards the country people in the neighbourhood
determined to make a demonstration in favour of persons who had
been convicted, and they sent a number of carts into the town
containing turf, potatoes, and other supplies for the benefit of the
famihes of those people. There was a procession of these carts and
men through the town as a kind of demonstration. No disturbance
whatever took place, and it was admitted by the police that the town
was peaceable ; and yet the authorities chose to treat the procession
as an illegal meeting, and they prosecuted ten persons for being
present, and these persons were convicted and sentenced to six weeks'
hard labour each. He ventured to ask them if they could be
surprised that in the face of things of this kind there should be
discontent in that part of Ireland. He must also mention to them
the fact that, with one exception, the magistrates refused to state a
case in every one of these cases. It was absolutely certain now,
upon the decision of the judges in the Exchequer Court of Dublin
in a recent case, that every one of these convictions for refusing to
supply goods to the lady or to the police was absolutely illegal, and
that all these people had been illegally imprisoned. *

The Modern Star Chamber.

The Star Chamber clause provides for the holding of
secret inquiries, and for inflicting terms of imprisonment
which are practically indefinite. It can be called into
operation on small pretexts, and can be used as a weapon,
either by an individual or a privileged class. Secret
inquisition has long been obnoxious to Englishmen, but it
has been thought good enough by a Tory Government and
Mr. Chamberlain to be applied to Ireland. It has been
used in the interests of the landlords, to the injury of the
struggling tenants. The Catholic Bishop of Raphoe wrote
to the Freeman on the subject, as follows : —

Letterkenny, June 13th.

Dear Sir, — The extraordinary way in which the preliminary
* See ^Iso Shaw-Lefevre's " Incidents of Coercion."

4o6

inquiry clauses of the Crimes Act are being worked in Donegal
compels me to draw public attention to the increasing gravity of
the situation that has been forced upon the people. For the main-
tenance of good order among them I am, by my position, more
deeply concerned than any resident magistrate, and I cannot look
on, without a protest, while some of the most peaceful districts
in Ireland are being thrown into a state of utter confusion by the
needless operations of a secret coercion court. It is impossible to
heal the wounds already inflicted on public tranquillity by this
itinerant tribunal, but it may not be too late to arrest the danger of
still worse results. Its daily work is a standing menace to peace
and incitement to violence.

The little town of Dungloe is situated in the midst of a
population, whose character for intelligence, industry, and peace-
fulness is not surpassed by the good name of the inhabitants at any
point on the Irish seaboard. Until a few weeks ago, its townpeople
lived in a state of enviable quietude, such as the strained relations
between landlord and tenant would allow few neighbouring districts
to assume. As a matter of fact, the locality has been always
remarkable for the amicable settlement of agrarian disputes. But
this bleak Arcadia was doomed. A resident magistrate thought
well to establish his Star Chambers in its midst. The leading
men of the town were summoned on short notice before him, with
practically no option but to decline answering or appear before the
public in the odious character of informers on their neighbours. It
is unnecessary to say which course a Rosses man will take in such
circumstances. These townspeople of Dungloe, some of them in a
most delicate state of health, were made to come from Derry Gaol
long journeys on outside cars, at late hours of the night, and in
torrents of rain, rather than have the name of yielding to the
behests of this mischievous court. Worse still, their friends and
admirers, who most naturally throng to welcome them on each
return from prison, must atone for their impudence by yielding to
a baton charge or being dragged from their beds to a police bar-
racks in the small hours of the morning.

I implore the people to be true to their Christian duty, to
Ireland, and to themselves, by not allowing even such insensate
provocation to drive them into violence. They have not begun the

407

disturbance. They are under an excellent guide in their parish
priest. Let the whole responsibility for disorder rest on those
whose tyrannical administration has called it into being.

Faithfully yours,

+ Patrick O'Donnell.

Men who objected to answer questions were sent to
gaol; men who refused to obey the summons of the Court
of Summary Jurisdiction were arrested in the middle of the
night and dragged from their beds. Youths, girls, and
boys as well as men were summoned before the secret
tribunal, and joyfully went to prison rather than be branded
as informers and thus play into the hands of a coercive
Government.

Police Violation of the Ordinary Laws.
The ordinary law of the country has also been over-
ridden by the police, and respect for law has been brought
into contempt by the action of law officers. Jury packing
has been indulged in repeatedly. At Queen's County, all
Catholic jurors were ordered to stand aside, though the
Catholics number 88 per cent, of the population. They
sent a protest to the Judge signed by thirty-nine persons,
as follows : —

May it please your Lordship, —
We, the undersigned Roman Catholic jurors from various parts
of the Queen's County, respectfully beg to bring under your Lord-
ships notice the following facts : —

We have been summoned as jurors and compelled to attend the
assizes under penalty of being severely fined ; we have attended from
day to day at great loss and inconvenience, and, while prepared to
perform our duty conscientiously and justly, the Crown officials
have denied us, as Catholics, the exercise, in important cases, of our
right, by ordering us when called upon to stand aside, without any
just cause or objection save our faith.

4o8

We resent this gross outrage and indignity not only to our-
selves, but to the whole Catholic community who form the vast bulk
of the population of the Queen's County.

We protest in the strongest manner against the vicious system
of jury-packing, which carries into courts of justice party prejudices
and passions, that seeks to libel the Catholic community, and stigma-
tises them as being unconscionable and unfit to serve on juries or
keep their oaths.

Mr. Clancy says : — " Finally, at the Wicklow Assizes
of last summer to which had been transferred some cases
from other counties, exclusively Protestant juries were
sworn in every case of importance, every Catholic juror
being excluded by being told to "stand aside" when he
went into the box to be sworn. In one case — that of ten
young Catholic peasants tried "obstructing" the sheriff at
an eviction in the county of Wexford — not only Catholics
to the number of thirty-five, but two or three Liberal
Protestants were also ordered to " stand aside," the
consequence being that a public meeting was held in the
Town Hall, Wicklow, to denounce such insults to the
majority of the population — but, of course, without the
slightest effect."

Attacks on Public Meetings.

The right of public meetings has been interfered with,
and men have been cruelly batoned and shot by the paid
supporters of law and order.

Meetings at Ennis, Mitchelstown, Fcrmoy, Limerick,
Ballinsloe, Dunkalk, and many other places bear witness
to this.

" Remember Mitchelstown."

The Mitchelstown outrage by the police has com-
manded much attention. The authorities knew that the

409

meeting was to be held. The meeting was properly called
and advertised, and was attended by two English Members
of Parliament, viz., Mr. Henry Labouchere the proprietor
of Truth, and Mr. J. T. Brunner who had just been
successfully returned as member for Northwich, and who
carried with him a message of friendship to the Irish people.

I was present at Leinster Hall in Dublin the night
previous to the Mitchelstown meeting, and heard their pacific
and sympathetic utterances. The police, however, waited
until the meeting was being held, and then without any
warrant or legal authority endeavoured to force their way
through the closely packed mass of eager hsteners.
Failing to do so, they returned for re-inforcements, and
with batons in hand charged the crowd, striking the horses
on which some of the Tipperary men sat on the edge of
the crowd. The people still held to their places, until
beaten, bruised, and exasperated beyond measure, they
retaliated, and the police were forced to seek shelter in
their barracks. Then these hrave men, from an upper
window fired upon the crowd, who were not within many
yards of the barracks, some without orders or further pro-
vocation. The result was that one man was killed
instantly, and two others mortally wounded. The coroner's
jury brought in a verdict of '* wilful murder," against the
policemen, but the Dublin Executive, by an arbitrary Act,
quashed the proceedings.

The plea of the Government was, that these men were
killed by a ricochet shot, but Mr. H. J. Wilson, M.P. for a
Yorkshire constituency, viz., Holmfirth Division, visited
Mitchelstown, and from the windows of the barracks took
photographs of the places where the m.en had been shot,
and conclusively proved the falsity of the Government
statement.

410

A National League Meeting near Cork.

What would have followed had this policy of forcing
reporters through crowds of citizens assembled at public meet-
ings been continued, it is impossible to say. The people of
Ireland were angered beyond endurance ; and I was present a
week after the Mitchelstown tragedy at a meeting near Cork
where the Irish "boys" came marching after the armed
Constabulary, with hurley sticks on their shoulders,
determined not to allow their meeting to be illegally
interfered with. The Mayor of Cork presided, and
was supported by the High Sheriff — a Protestant —
Messrs. J. Deasy, O'Hea, and Dr. Tanner, Members
of Parliament, and the leading citizens of Cork. But
the indignation excited in England by the Mitchelstown
murders made Mr. Balfour desist for a time from breaking
into Constitutional Meetings, and in consequence the
officer in command of the Constabulary in Cork con-
ferred with the Mayor previous to the commencement of
the proceedings, and facility was given for the Government
reporters to be placed in front of the platform, protected
by chosen members of the Police Force. Although Mr.
Wm. O'Brien was incarcerated a short distance away in
Cork gaol, the meeting was orderly in the extreme.

To light a bonfire in honour of the release of political
prisoners is, in Ireland, a crime. Young men were fined
and imprisoned for lighting fires in celebration of the release
of Mr. Wm. O'Brien and Mr. T. D. Sullivan. AtTralee,two
young men, highly respected in the neighbourhood, were
bound over to keep the peace, or go to gaol for a month,
because they laughed and *' booed " at a police-sergeant.
A constable, who was a chief witness for his superior,
swore that the noise they made " was not exactly a boo,
but between a boo and a laugh." They went to gaol.

4ti

Police Espionage.
Visitors to Ireland have been dogged by police spies,
their letters have been opened, and themselves subjected
to various indignities. Police-officers, armed to the teeth,
are to be found at railway stations, walking along the line
of carriages, and peering suspiciously into the various
compartments. I have seen them pursuing this work of
spying. I distinctly saw a police-inspector in Dublin
pointing me out to the Head Detective, because I been in
the company of the Lord Mayor, Mr. William O'Brien,
M.P., Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., and other leading
Nationalists, and I enjoyed the consciousness of being an
object of suspicion. The delegates of the English Home
Rule Union had a similar experience.

An Evening at Cork.
I steiyed in the Victoria Plotel, in Cork, and was
present in the coffee room one evening with Mr. J. T.
Brunner, M.P. for Northwich ; Mr. J. B. Firth, now M.P.
for Dundee ; Mr. Coote, ex-M.P. for South Huntingdon-
shire ; Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., and other gentlemen.
The special correspondent of the Manchester Guardian was
also in the hotel. We were assured that we were being
watched. Mr. Firth and Mr. Coote left the room, and
quietly proceeded outside, when they found several police-
men peering through the blinds of the coffee-room in
order to watch the deeds of the desperate conspirators
inside. The men were non-plussed at being detected, and
could only stammer out the unsatisfactory explanation that
they were at their proper post, and were doing their duty.

Government Meanness.
Petty meanness has characterised the administration
of the law. Mr. Sheehy, M.P., returned home to see his

^12

wife who was dangerously ill. He was immediately
arrested and denied bail. On appeal against the verdict he
proceeded, as was his right, to leave the court pending the
appeal, but was again arrested at the door, carried across
the country, tried on another charge, and sent to gaol for
a month, because that term precluded an appeal and liberty
pending its settlement. During his imprisonment he was
brought up to give evidence in the case of Mr. Wilfred
Blunt. He was presented before his own constituents in a
prison dress and was conveyed fifteen miles in an outside
car in winter weather without hat, because he refused to
wear the prison cap.

John Roche, of Woodford, for helping the tenantry to
resist the injustices of Lord Clanricarde has been imprison-
ed three times, and for showing Lady Anne Blunt a portion
of the estate has also been fined for trespass. He says in
a letter to the Freeman! s Journal : —

On the evening of the 13th instant I was visiting my brother-
in-law, Mr. Vicary, and left his house at 9 p.m. for my own, which
is not more than 200 yards distant. I had not gone more than 5
yards from Mr. Vicary's door when I found myself suddenly clutched
by the arms. The night being very dark I at once asked who my
assailant was, and was told it was the head constable, who had a
warrant for my arrest. I then requested to be allowed to tell Mr.
Vicary of my arrest, and to send word to my wife not to expect me
for the night. Not alone was this refused, but I was violently dragged
by the head constable. I again requested that he would not drag
me in such a manner, that there was no necessity, as I did not offer
the slightest resistance. He still persisted in pulling me along at a
quick pace, and had it not been that I saw a little boy near the bar-
rack door, and called out to him to go and tell my friends that I was
arrested, they would, I am certain, have remained in total ignorance
of my whereabouts for the night. On being informed by the head
constable that I and my friend Mr. Boland, who was subsequently
arrested, would be kept in the barrack for the greater part of the

413

night, I requested that our friends might be allowed to bring us a cup
of tea, which request was refused in the most insolent manner ; and
we were compelled to remain in the kitchen of the barracks, without
any accommodotion except a form to sit on, until nine o'clock next
morning, when we were driven a distance of four miles, and charged
before Mr. Townsend, R.M., with taking part in an illegal assembly,
and admitted to bail. I may add that it is the belief of everyone here
that the treatment we were subjected to was prompted by Mr. Bal-
four's policy, exposed by Mr. Blunt, as we could be found at our
homes on the following morning, as well as any morning since the
alleged offence committed on 21st December, 1887. I have written
to the Inspector-General complaining of the treatment we have re-
ceived at the hands of the police, and received the usual stereotyped
answer, that inquiry would be made into it. I dare say that is all I
will hear about it from the Inspector. General, and I believe the
head constable will be complimented for his cruelty.

The *' Tender Mercies " of Mr. Balfour !

The wife of a prison warder put a lighted candle in
the window of her house on the occasion of Mr. William
O'Brien's release from gaol. Her plea was that all the
other houses were illuminated and she did not wish her
house to be made the subject of an attack, because the
inmates did not participate in the general rejoicing. Her
husband was on duty, and did not know of the offence.
His ignorance of the occurrence was no extenuation of his
guilt. He was reduced in rank, removed to a distant
prison at his own expense, and practically fined £'] a
year for life. Through the persistent questions of Mr.
Bradlaugh and others in the House of Commons, the
Government have reluctantly been compelled to restore
him to rank.

Teachers and schoolmasters have also had their
political liberty infringed, and have been reprimanded by
the Commissioners of National Education for attending

4^4

political demonstrations, and for being members of the
Gaelic Athletic Association.

For further detailed statements of this petty persecu-
tion, I refer the readers of the above to the able articles of
Mr. J. J. Clancy, M.P.

Thomas Larkin entered prison a hale and finely-built
man, and was carried out to his burial. John Mandeville
refused to wear felon's clothes and do menial work, so he
was stripped by force, fed on bread and water, and, though
under medical treatment, and suffering from sore throat
and diarrhoea, was kept on punishment diet. His health
broke down, and after his release, he died. Dr. Ridley,
the medical officer in charge, would have treated him
leniently, but was overridden by a special doctor, sent by
the Prisons Board to carry out the Balfourian policy, and
was also reprimanded for his kindness. Even then, he
committed suicide rather than face the inquest on Mr.
Mandeville. A warder who threw Mr. Mandeville a morsel
of meat, when he was too ill to eat coarse brown bread,
has been since dismissed the service. Mr. William O'Brien
fought to retain his clothes, and they were stolen from
him. He would have remainded in a naked condition,
had not a suit of tweed been smuggled into the cell. Dr.
Hooper, M.P., Mr. J. W. Lane, M.P., and others have also
given strong evidence to prove the inhumanity of Mr.
Balfour's prison regulations.

Another Failure of Coercion to Record.
But what must be most mortifying to Mr. Balfour and
the Tories, is the fact that all this extreme policy has
failed. The National League is not suppressed. The aid
of the Tivies newspaper has been called in. Pamphlets
on " Parnellism and Crime " have been scattered broad-

415

cast over the country. Mr. Parnell and the national
leaders have been called by the vilest epithets, and have been
charged with being the fomentors of insurrection, the
manufacturers of outrage, and the associates of the
criminals, whose weapons are dynamite and daggers, and
whose trade is murder. The Government, in the person
of the Attorney-General, has identified itself with the
Times. Mr. W. H. Smith, the Tory Leader of the House,
admitted that before the application of Mr. Parnell to have
the charges investigated by a Committee of the House of
Commons was considered, he had called upon his '* old
friend Walter," the proprietor of the Timds^ though he
disclaimed any arrangement with him on the subject of
the Government's attitude.

The Times and Parnellism.

Forged documents purporting to be the writings of
the National Leaders have been purchased by the Times,
and some of them have been found to be too clumsy to be
used. The English characteristic of fair play has been
conspicuous by its absence in the conduct of the Govern-
ment towards the Irish Leader. The accusations were
terrible, yet the precedents of trying a member of the House
by his compeers were set aside. Mr. Smith stated that the
House of Commons was "absolutely incompetent" to
investigate the charges made against Mr. Parnell. So
much for his opinion of the intellect or character of Mem-
bers of Parliament.

h special Act of Parliament was passed, giving powers
to three judges to investigate the statements of the Ti??ies.
At the first meeting, the Times was called upon to state its
case and formulate its charges. The Counsel representing
the Times tried to evade this responsibility, but failed, and

4i6

now, the greatest trial of the century proceeds to drag its
slow length through the court of special commission. The
people of England are dragged at the heels of the Times
newspaper.

Will the Irish Question be settled if the
Parnellites are condemned ?

But what is the result of it all ? If Mr. Parnell and
his party are found to have kept company with men of
advanced or of murderous purposes, will it settle the
Irish Question ? Ireland will still be England's neighbour,
and the condemnation of the Nationalists will not smother
and destroy the fires of patriotism and nationality. The
black and cowardly attacks of the ''Thunderer" up to the
present time allied with the rigorous coercion of Mr.
Balfour, have not advanced the cause of " Unionism " in
the English constituencies, and have not made the Irish
people less loyal to their leaders and their cause.

There is not one more loyal person in Mitchelstown
to-day, than there was before the constabulary shot down
unoffending persons in the market-place. No one loves
the legislative Union any more than before the imprison-
ment of National leaders. The "Plan of Campaign" still
flourishes. For every patriot who has fallen, a hundred are
ready to step into the breach. For every imprisoned leader,
a thousand are eager to repeat his words. Mr. Balfour's
victims come out of prison and speak again and again the
words for which they were condemned. The receipts in
support of the National League increase by the greater
sacrifices of the Irish at home and abroad. Those branches
of the' League which are the most vigorous, are those which
have been most bitterly assailed.

417

Balfour's Triumphs refuted by his Colleagues.
Mr. Balfour, in April, 1888, stated that the League
had become " a thing of the past." In a few days, Mr.
Trench, the agent for the Tory Lord-Lieutenant, declared
at a meeting of landlords in Dublin, that " anyone who
imagined the League to be dead, had a very curious
idea of what was going on in Ireland." Two months
after, Mr. Goschen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said
that ** the power of the League in every quarter of Ireland
was ubiquitous."

Mr. Balfour and the Tories have been sitting on the safety
valve of the nation, and at every election have been lifted, to
their discomfort, by the escaping steam. All this goes to
prove that their policy is not only wicked, but is also worth-
less, and that their methods of government are worn out,
because the thoughts and sympathies of men have out-
stripped them. Charlatans in politics only cling to
antiquated methods which are forsaken by those who have
made progress in the science of government. Coercion
deserves to be buried with the gyves, stocks and thumb-
screws in the Tower of London. It is fit only to be
associated with autocratic despotism, in a nation of slaves.
It fails ever when applied to a nation made free by repre-
sentative government. But Mr. Balfour still praises it.
He is enamoured of his policy. It will succeed he thinks: —

Thus, Harlequin extolled his horse ;

Fit for the road, the race, the course ;

One fault he had, a fault indeed ;

And what was that ? the horse was dead !

If any thing could have brought it to life Mr. Balfour might
have succeeded. But electric batteries of Unionist and Tory
arguments have all failed, and the Government in its policy

4»o

of coercion, bestrides the galvanised corpse of a method of
government which was slain when the people obtained the
Franchise. Two democracies, those of Great Britain and
Ireland, defy the coercive policy of Mr. Balfour, and laugh
at his attempts to succeed with methods which stronger
men, like Wellington, Peel and Forster, failed to make
effective.

More Prisons Needed.

When I visited Dublin last year, a carman pointed out
to me a large hospital built by Messrs. Guinness. I
knavishly asked whether it was intended for the purpose of
curing those who had injured themselves after drinking the
celebrated stout made in the neighbouring brewery, and he
replied, "Oh, no sir! shure, and there isn't a place in Dublin
big enough for that." So there are not sufficient prisons
in Ireland, to hold those who are prepared to defy coercion,
and support the policy of the National Leaders. The
Government, supported by thirty thousand soldiers and
twelve thousand constabulary, have been unable to break
the spirit of Irish patriots, and choice must now be made
between granting the national demand for Home Rule,
or the total suppression of every constitutional right, in-
cluding the imprisonment of all the Irish representatives,
and the taking away of the Franchise, for while one Irish
freeman remains he will insist upon a recognition of Irish
nationality.

Sympathy with Nationalism by Government
Employees.

Government officials are in sympathy in many instances
with the National cause. The soldiers allowing their
humanity to rise above their allegiance to Government

419

have subscribed money at evictions for distressed tenants,
and employes of the Government have been known
to cheer Irish patriots. I was in Dublin when
Mr. William O'Brien was arrested and taken to
prison. From the post office men came out to cheer
the prisoner, while all along the route workmen and
shopkeepers joined in greeting him, until the procession
seemed like a triumph for the accused. I witnessed the
sympathetic expressions and heard the cheers, and was
present at the meeting at Leinster Hall, on the eve of the
Mitchelstown trial, when thousands, not clad in rags, but
in broadcloth and tweed, met to cheer the heart and
strengthen the hands of the man already strong in his con-
sciousness of the justice of his cause and the needs of his
fellow-countrymen. I shall never forget the demonstra-
tions of grief which marked his entrance into the train at
Dublin, to be conveyed to an unknown prison. The tears
of strong men, their groans and cries, were enough to
move a heart of stone, and never until then did I feel how
hateful was the English system of administering law in
Ireland.

Lessons learnt during a Personal Visit.

From a free visit to all classes of the community,
unattended by Nationalist guides, in Belfast, Dublin, Cork,
Waterford, Lismore, and many other places further
removed from the centres of population, I learnt the
following lessons : —

I. That ministers of religion gain the truest respect, who
identify themselves with the struggles of a peasantry, who are the
worst fed, the worst clad, and the worst housed of any peasantry in
Europe, although for seven hundred years they have been connected
with the wealthieat nation in the world.

420

2. That the National movement embraces all classes of the
community, and that it is a libel to say that only the poor, depraved,
and self-seeking support it.

3. That the National cause cannot be suppressed by tyranny,
and that freedom is indestructible.

4. That Protestants, outside the Orange Lodges, are, in many
instances, in favour of Home Rule, and that nothing but the fear
of oppression from Orangemen prevents them from publicly assert-
ing their opinion.

5. That the administration of law, and the maintenance of
order, have intentionally been made offensive and obtrusive by
the partisans of Dublin Castle, with a view of discrediting the
Nationalists, and exasperating them to acts of outrage and violence.

6. That to assail men who are fighting their country's battles,
defeats the assailants, and strengthens the people's affection for
their leaders.

7. That Ireland after 700 years of the failure of force to subdue
it, is conquered to day by the kindness and sympathy of the English
Democracy. The visits of political leaders to Ireland have done
much to accomplish this.

The True Conquest of Ireland.

The invasions of friends have captured the susceptible
heart of the Irish nation, and have done more to secure a
fusion of interests and unity than all the virulent attacks
of the supporters of Coercion. Mr. P. Stanhope, M.P.,
and the Members of Parliament who, under the leadership of
Mr. A. lUingworth, M.P. for West Bradford, are to be
credited with much of the changed feelings of the Irish
masses. The personal visits and influence of Mr. Shaw-
Lefevre and leading journalists have also worked wonders.
Their journeys to remote places have stirred up the latent
embers of confidence and love, which so many years
of Coercion had done so much to stifle, and to-day,
hands which were once clenched in anger and strife, are

42 1

held out openly to the English people. The cheers I
heard given in Dublin, Cork, and Belfast, for Mr.
Gladstone, were suggestive and instructive, and taught the
lesson that kindness and generous treatment are a truer
corrective of a nation's disorders, than the severest
methods of repression. To v^^in the heart is better than to
handcuff the limbs.

What Constitutes a People's Liberty?

Cowley says,* '* The liberty of a people consists in
being governed by laws which they have made for them-
selves, under whatever form it be of government ;" and
Landor says, ** Let us try rather to remove the evils of
Ireland, than to persuade those that undergo them, that
there are none."

Mr. Lowell has written in the *' Biglow Papers,"

that—

Labourin' man and labourin' woman

Hev one glory and . one shame ;
Ev'thin' thet's done inhuman

Injirs all on 'em the same.

This is the lesson which the English Democracy are learn-
ing, and they see that in the interests of England and the
British Empire at large, it is necessary to make the people
of Ireland contented and free.- In a speech of Mr. O'Brien
delivered in my hearing, the following passage was greeted
with thunderous applause : —

" Irish forgiveness is to be had to this hour for the honest asking.
A single Smith O'Brien redeems a whole pedigree of Murrough the
Burners and Black Inchiquins. The change which the wizardy of one
great old man has wrought in the course of a single year in the feelings
of the most extreme of us towards the English people is an assurance
that no prejudices are too ancient, no wrongs too cruel, no grudges

* Quoted by Robbins, in " Practical Politics,"

422

too deep-seated to yield to the first appeal of genius and sincerity to
the infinite tenderness of the Irish heart. There shall be false gods
no more in Ireland ; but for good men and capable men who have a
heart for the miseries of their countrymen and the will to labour for
their alleviation, there is still, and there will be always, welcome,
honour, and gratitude, no matter what his class or from what race
he may be sprung."

Earl Kimberley in a speech in the House of Lords,
said — " Ireland is a country with which English Statesmen
have been singularly unsuccessful in dealing. But if we
can devise any measure by which that country can be
brought into sympathy with the rest of the United King-
dom, by which we shall touch the hearts of the people,
which we have never yet touched, we shall add to the glory
and strength of the Empire, more than by any other mea-
sure we can possibly devise."

The answer to Lord Kimberley's appeal is the Home
Rule Scheme of Mr. Gladstone, and the wisdom of the
words are proved by the present attitude of the Irish people
in relation to England.

Home Rule Benefits to England.

The benefits accruing to England from Home
Rule would be, that Parliament would be lightened of
many of the burdens which now cripple its progress.
England would be strengthened in time of war, by having
a friendly and contented people at her back, instead of a
nation dissatisfied and rebellious. Greater attention could
be paid to the colonies, and the suffering races that appeal
to England for guidance and government. The first step
in the scheme of Federal Government for the British
Empire would be taken. The taxation of the country
would be lessened, and fewer forces would be needed to
keep Ireland quiet. An immense impetus would be secured

423

for the progressive legislation urgently needed in England.
Ireland would settle her agrarian difficulties, so that
instead of Ireland having only one owner of land to every
seventy-nine souls, she would more nearly approach
France, which has one to every twelve, or Austria or
Hungary, where is one to every ten, or Italy and Switzer-
land, where is one to every nine ; or Belgium, where there
is one to every five ; or better still, would secure that
nationalisation of the land, which would make it the
common property of the people. Cheerfulness would take
the place of suUenness in maintaining the law, and an
Irishman would feel that in his own country there was that
sphere of laudable ambition, which he has now to seek
across the wide waste of waters.

The Responsibility of the English Masses.

To this work the English masses have now to
devote their powers. Upon them rests the responsibility.
Previous to the extension of the Franchise they could say,
"We have no power, and are not responsible for the acts
of our rulers," but now responsibility rests upon them, for
the power is in their grasp. At the last elections the
people said, we do not understand the question aright, but
while we give a mandate against Home Rule, we also give
a mandate against Coercion. While professing to carry
out the former, the Tories and "Unionists" have violated
the latter. When they found that the ordinary law had
failed them, their duty was to come back to the people
and acknowledge that their proud boast had been an
empty one, and that they must be entrusted with
fuller powers. They refused to do this, and retained
office with its sweets and emoluments. But they
must again face the people to answer for their political

424

perfidy and their violent measure of Coercion. That they
dread the event is certain, for they know that it will be the
time of their political doom. In appearing upon platforms,
they must take as their motto the words of the gladiators
in the Roman arena, " Morituri te salutant" — "Those who
are about to die salute thee." It will be then for the
people of England to say, in the words of Mr. Bright : —
" Let us make a new union ; written on no parchment,
bound with no oath ; its conditions : Justice on the part
of England, forgiveness on the part of Ireland ; and we
will pray to Him, Who is the Father of all, that He will
keep it for ever and ever inviolate."

APPENDIX

ON THE

LAND QUESTIOT^,

BY THE

Rev. JOSEPH ELLIS,

VICAR OF WILSDEN.

The following remarks on the Land Question will not be found
to contain its history, but only an account of its position at the
present moment, for the purpose of assisting those who are called
upon to promote its settlement, by their votes and influence, to
form a sound opinion. The past history of the question is of
the greatest importance, and much of it will be found in the
work itself ; it is rather the object of the writer to carry that
history down to the present hour, that we may see how insepar-
ately it is bound up with Home Rule, and, taking a wise lesson
from our previous mistakes, resolve that the Irish people shall be
left to deal with Irish affairs.

Beginning then with the Land Act last placed on the Statute
Book, I would say that perhaps no better example can be adduced
of the defects of government in London for the affairs of Ireland
than the great Land Act of 1881. The measure was devised
with consummate skill and knowledge ; it was honestly designed
to reach the root of the Irish Land Question ; it avoided many
defects of former measures ; it boldly confiscated ancient rights
of property in favour of the tenant ; it aroused the fury of the
landlord class, and the enthusiasm of English Liberals, We

42b

hoped the Irish Laud Question was settled by this "Magna
Charta of Ireland," and were proportionately indignant with Mr^
Parnell, Mr. Dillon, and their followers, for withholding their
support.

Yet it is failing, as all laws are doomed to fail which are
made for Ireland in England and by Englishmen, instead of
being made in Ireland and by Irishmen for themselves. Its
defects were foreseen by the Irish leaders, and they are proving
fatal ; for : —

. 1. — It sets up a joint ownership in the land between
persons of opposing interests ; whereas the only true solu-
tion, some of us think, is that of working ownership under
the State.

2. — It makes no provision for sudden falls in the value
of produce.

3. — It makes no provision for suspending evictions
pending settlement of fair rents, or in case of a fall of
prices after a judicial rent has been fixed.

4. — It allows appeals from the Local Land Courts to a
Central Court in Dublin, which, however fair in itself,
placed in the hands of the rich landlord an effectual
weapon against the tenant.

5. — It left the leaseholders at the old rack-rents without
a remedy.

6.— The "Healy Clause" of the Act, by which Mr.
Gladstone and the House of Commons intended to ex-
clude the tenants' improvements in calculating the judicial
rents, was made null and void by the Irish Lord-Justices
of Appeal; who held that the enjoyment of improve-
ments made before the Land Act of 1870 was a compensa-
tion for them.

And lastly, the tenants were to a great extent deprived
of the benefit of the Act by the appointment of Com-
missioners from the landlord class, and by making an
example of those who ventured to give large reductions.

427

Referring to the mode of appointing Commissioners,Mr. Healy
in "A Word for Ireland," writes (p. 130) " Of the seventy or eighty
Commissioners appointed to fix fair rents, not more than two or
three were tenant farmers. The rest were landlords, agents or
lawyers, most of them in bitter antagonism to popular feeling ;
and the moment they began to cut down rents they were intimi-
dated by the protests of their own class, and by a Committee of
Enquiry set on foot by the House of Lords. As an instance of
the spirit that prevailed, it may be mentioned that Mr. George
Fottrell, Solicitor to the Land Commission, was called on to
resign for publishing a leaflet encouraging the people to use the
purchase clauses of the Act, and citing the names of Mr.
Parnell and Mr. Davitt as advocates of peasant proprietary.
This high-handed proceeding completed the terrorism of the
officials. Those who remained took their cue from the castle,
and to clinch the influence of the administration over the Sub-
Commissioners, a number were appointed for short terms not
exceeding a year, so that when the list of quarterly dismissals
was counted over by the trembling rent-fixers, they might judge
what line of conduct was best calculated to secure the continu-
ance of their salaries. A few of them had originally been
appointed for longer terms, and whenever these shewed any signs
of independance, their circuits were broken up, and themselves
transferred to distant counties far from the landlords upon whose
rack-rents they had been operating."

Lest the suspicion which still lurks in the English mind
respecting the statements of a National leader, should deprive
this quotation of its due weight, I will support it by the testi-
mony of Mr. T. A. Dickson, late M.P. for Tyrone. This
gentleman is a Protestant of Ulster, a Liberal, and one of the
most ardent supporters of Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill of 1881.
In reply to the question of a reporter sent to him from the office
of the Freeman'' s Journal: — "Do you think the Ulster tenants
were in too great a hurry to enter the land courts ? " Mr.
Dickson said : — " I am sorry to say I do, and that I, and other
friends, urged them to go in at oncCj. 'J li^d tb^^^[^4|^plicit

428

faith in the Land Act; but I had no idea, when I so advised the
tenants, that the House of Lords would, before the Act was six
months working, luive sought to frustrate its intention by a
Committee of Enquiry, which terrorised Sub-Commissioners
whose tenure of office was from year to year. I gave evidence
before the Royal Commission which has just closed its sittings,
that judicial rents fixed 1882-5 had now become impossible rents.
The Commissioners were afraid at the commencement of their
operations to make such reductions as the case demanded, and
those of them who fearlessly endeavoured to do their duty by
the tenants, such as Mr. Wylie in JSIorth Tyrone, and Mr. Meek
in Armagh, were removed from their counties on the complaint of
the landlords and removed to other districts."

These facts bear out what we English have been too slow to
learn, that even if our Government were inspired with the most
righteous determination to do justice in Ireland, it would not
avail the Irish people, because the official class, from the Judges
downwards, are nearly all the brothers, cousins, nephews, or
near relations of landlords, and consequently have an interest, direct
or indirect, in supporting them. Through the wall of brass
which surrounds Ireland, English good intentions cannot pass.

The question of the moment is " Are the present rents
possible or impossible ? " I believe they are impossible for
reasons which I will briefly give. But first, to lay our grounds
safely, we must enquire, " What is rent? "

It is obvious that rent must come out of the produce of the
farm. The farmer digs, ploughs, sows, weeds, reaps and thrashes :
he eats part of the produce, sells a part that he may buy
clothing, pay his school pence, his doctor's bill, and his priests
fees. Out of the remainder he provides seed for the next sow-
ing, and rent for the landlord ; and ought to save something for
bad times, sickness and old age. Now, seeing that by the first law of
nature, he and his family must live, and that he must save out
of this year's produce enough to seed for the next, it follows that
rent is surplus produce.

429

The Bradford Observer in one of its thoughtful able articles,
recently gave this definition : — " Economic rent is that surplus
of produce which the soil yields over and above the ordinary
return to the labour and capital extended upon it." Rent then is
surplus produce, not a fi.rst and sacred charge upon the land
which must be paid whether the tenant can live or not. It is of
the utmost importance that this superstition should be exploded,
for until men's minds are disabused of such falsities the dictum
of Lord Salisbury will find too many supporters : ' Let the tenant
pay or quit.' "

It is estimated by Mr. Giffen, the eminent statician, that the
average produce of an Irish farm before the late fall in prices
was £70, and that about one-fifth was paid in rent. A fifth of
£70 is £14, and this is the average rent of an Irish holdings.
But though the average Irish farm produced £70 a year, yet the
vast majority of them did not yield half of that amount. The
gross produce of nearly four-fifths of the Irish holdings before
the recent fall in prices was nearer £30 than £70.

Now the average judicial rent of these farms as fixed by the
Land Courts in 1882-5, for fifteen years was £6, and when that
was paid the tenant had £24 a year, or 9s. 3d. a week for the
support of five persons. But the great fall in the value of
produce has swallowed up nearly all the rent fund ; and there-
fore if he continues to pay the judicial rent it must come out of
9s. 3d. a week. Is this possible?

It is a sheer impossibility that tenants whose gross produce
was £30 before the recent fall in prices, should continue to pay
£6 in rent now that prices have fallen 15 or 20 per cent.

To prove tliis point, before I proceed, I quote Sir James
Caikd {Times, March, 1886) :— " The land in Ireland is held by
two distinct classes of tenants — the small farmers who pay rent
from £1 to £20, and the comparatively large farmers who pay
rent from £20 upwards ; of the first class there are 538,000
lioldings, averaging £6 each ; of the second class 121,000 holdings,
averaging £56 each. If the present price of agricultural produce

430

continue, I should fear that from the land held by the large body
of the poor farmers of Ireland, any economical rent has for the
present disappeared."

Now I want to fix attention on this fact, that the gross pro-
duce of the vast majority of Irish farms is only £30 a year.
The value of produce has fallen at least 15 per cent, since the
rents of these farms were fixed ; 15 per cent, on £30 is £4 10s.
His rent is £6, and £4 10s. or 75 per cent, is swallowed up by
the fall of produce. How is he to pay it out of 9s. 3d. a week ?

Not that the actual loss to the farmer on these holdings is
75 per cent., inasmuch as the part which he consumes, whether
as seed or food, is not affected by the fall in prices ; but that
portion which he sells to procure clothing, school-money, imple-
ments of husbandry, rent, &c., is affected ; therefore, probably
half the drop in prices, or 35 to 37 per cent., is a fair reduction:
and this is what the Commissioners are giving at the present
time. But the fall in the value of produce is denied, as everything
which happens to be inconvenient is denied by some politicians.

Mr. Giffen estimates the fall since the judicial rents were
fixed at 11 to 19 per cent. Mr. Parnell made certain statements
jn introducing his bill for staying evictions which no one ventured
to meet. Pie said that The Farmers' Friend, an Irish landlords'
paper, gave a table of the relative prices before and after 1885 ;
showing a fall in pork of 30 per cent., butter 27, beef 16, mutton
18, wool 27, live stock 20. He also showed that the Land Com-
missioners fixed judicial rents before 1886, 9 per cent, above the
Poor Law valuation, but since this year came in 9 per cent, below
it, or 36 per cent, on the old rents. Mr. Parnell also referred to
reductions made in English farms of 27, 30, 40, and 50 per
cent., and in Irish estates, such as that of Earl Fitzwilliam, of 50
per cent.

Mr. Dillon, who followed on the same side, gives a case in
which an Irish landlord agreed with a tenant in 1881 that they
should keep out of the Land Court, and settle the reduction of
rent between themselves. The rent was £185, and it was

431

reduced to £150 ; but this year the tenant, induced by the low
price of produce and the great reductions made by the Commis-
sioners, went into the Land Courts for a further reduction, and
the fair rent was declared to be £100. And Mr. Dillon points
out that if this tenant had gone to the Land Court in 1882 he
would have had his rent fixed at itl50 for fifteen years, and might
during that time have paid (including compound interest) £1000
more than the farm was worth, without remedy. A thousand
pounds ! Is not the source of Irish poverty revealed by such
cases? Mr. Dillon also quotes the Antrim Tenants' Defence
Association — Protestants and Tories — who passed a resolution
declaring that 50 per cent, reduction would not meet the
depression ; and adding, that if it continues the tenants of Ulster
cannot pay rents and live.

The Ulster Land Committee also issued a report in 1885,
stating that if rents were not lowered one half the farmers of
Ireland would be ruined in three years.

Mr. Dillon refers to the Kildare Board of Guardians. The
Guardians of Ireland are half of them landlords, and the rest
elected by a very restricted suffrage ; but two Kildare Boards
adopted resolutions stating that the interests of landlord and
tenant would be best promoted by abatements of rent ; and that
50 per cent, below the Guardians' valuation was the least that
would do any good. It was their unanimous opinion that evic-
tions should be stopped. " If you won't believe the National
League," said Mr. Dillon addressing the House, "if you won't
believe Presbyterian fanners, yet you cannot refuse to believe the
Conservative landlords of County Kildare."

Upon two-thirds of the estates of Ireland the tenantry have
never applied for a reduction of rent till this year, because they
have been threatened with appeals which would swallow up in
costs of law more than they would get by way of relief. But
this year, tempted by the large reductions the Commissioners are
making, and driven by the terrible stress of the times, many have
entered the Land Courts with the result that 50 and 75 per cent,
has been obtained.

43^

Lord Clanricarde"s tenants have been defrauded of their
rights by these threats of appeal, and their claims in the Land
Courts this year have obtained reductions of 50 per cent., and
on an average of 25 per cent. Lord Clanricarde's estate at Wood-
ford having become the centre of agrarian war. I will quote at
length what Mr. Dillon said in the House of Commons about him.
" We have heard a good deal of Lord Clanricarde. He
knows nothing about his estate, and his tenants never see him
His tenants came into court in the month of May this year. If
you ask why they did not come there before, I will answer that
they were afraid to do so, because, as is the case in so many
other estates, the tenant has costs of appeal held over his head,
and is warned that every penny will be taken out of him by
writs from the superior courts of Dublin. They went into the
court at last. In one case the tenant's rent, which was £30, was
fixed at £15. In another from £7 10s., it was reduced to £3 5s.
This on an estate where the tenants have been compelled by
threats of writs from Dublin, to pay up to the last penny for the
last five years since the Land Act was passed. This is the land-
lord you expect to act reasonably, and to be merciful to his ten-
ants. These two cases I have picked out of dozens. I have others of
a similar character, and this is a man who has 3000 to 4000 ten-
ants in Galway, " He draws £20,000 as an absentee landlord
out of Ireland."

We shall hear more about Woodford in Galway, amongst
the mountains that overhang Loch Derg, where the mountaineers
have rescued their tiny holdings out of the moors, where rents
have been raised, doubled, trebled, multiplied on their own
improvements, and where backed by Ireland, America, and the
civilized world, they would stand at bay.

Mr. Stead, the well-known Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette
has been down to Woodford in Galway, and has given his own
account of it. He says that after a famous Galway election
(1872), the Marquis of Clanricarde, to avenge a political defeat,
clapped an increase of rent of 33 per cent, on those tenants who
dared to vote against the landlords' candidate.

433

I ask you to study that, and consider whether political
freedom, or freedom of contract, exists in Ireland. Can it be
wondered at that men who believe their rent was put up 33 per
cent, to avenge a political defeat do not see any harm in combin-
ing to pull down rents by 40 per cent, to meet a period of
universal depression ?

Mr. Stead goes on to say " The opinion in Woodford is that
if the Land Act was applied as Mr. Gladstone intended it should
be, in which the " Healey Clause " provided that the tenant's im-
provements, and those of his predecessors in title, should not be
counted in the valuation, — if this had been done, the rents would
be reduced to a mere song. For all that is rentable on the
Woodford estate is the work of the tenants. It is a
mountainous estate, and the farms stand out clear and distinct
from the midst of boulders and heather ; green spots surrounded
by waste, worth no more than 2/6 an acre. Over the mountain
sides are scattered the little holdings, — little green and gold bits
of land with a cottage in the middle, — the house of the peasant
who has made a home for himself where, but for his thrift and
labour, no blade of grass would grow. You ask who drained the
bog ? The tenant. It is he who piled the fences, who stubbed
out the stones, who sowed the grass, who manured the fields,
who put up the buildings, who made the roads across the fields.
The tenant did everything, the landlord nothing. If the tenant
leaves the farm to-day it lapses into waste again. Nothing but
the unremitting toil of the labouring man keeps these emerald
patches in the midst of the surrounding black. For the privilege
of converting bleak mountains into arable land, Lord Clanri-
carde charges the Woodford tenantry £800 a year. The tenants
consider that if justice were done the fee simple would be handed
over to them at once, as they have paid the prairie value of their
lands over and over again. This is at the back of the Woodford
mind. But it is not pressed. From time immemorial they have
paid their rack-rents with the utmost punctuality."

The tenants at Woodford asked a eduction of 25 per cent.

434

Lord Clanricarde refused any concession. A number of tenants
were picked out and proceeded against by writs from the superior
Court in Dublin. Mr. Stead asked an official why this was done*
"To strike terror," said he. "The costs are seven times as high,
and no time is allowed for redemption." Four tenants were
summarily dealt with. Their full rent and costs being demanded,
they refused to pay more than their rent less 25 per cent. Then
their interests in the farms was put up to public sale in Court,
but no one would buy over the head of an evicted tenant. So
the whole was bought in for the landlord by his agent for an old
song. One of these evicted tenants was Thomas Saunders, his
wife, old mother, and seven children ; he owed two years' rent,
£18, and costs £17 10s. He had returned from Australia about
seventeen years ago where he had made over £600 by farming.
He paid a fine of £100 on entering the farm, he built a house
and outbuildings at an expense of about £200 ; and although
strictly sober, hard-working and industrious, is not now worth a
shilling. To evict this man and three others, the bailiff came
with 700 police and a gang of Orangemen from Ulster !

Mr. Martin, of Galway, is one of this class of landlords. I
have passed through the country where his vast estate lies for
fifty miles along the road side. It is a day's journey from one
lodge gate to another. His tenants have received fair rents this
year, e.g., of £2 3s. reduced to 17s. 6d., £2 Is. 3d. to 10s. 6d., and
so on.

" The Land Commissions, meantime, which always, though
ostensibly judicial tribunals, take a good deal of their inspira-
tion from the Government, are tumbling down the rents at a pace
that might well take the breath away even of a secretary of the
National League. To-day, for instance, is published a list of the
reductions of rent on the estate of Colonel Tottenham, M.P.,
one of the shining lights of the Tory party, who most bitterly
opposed Mr. Gladstone's land legislation. In this catalogue there
are instances of rent being reduced from £8 to £3 15s., from
£17 17s. 6d. to £6 10s„ and from £47 10s. to £20. It is perfectly

435

clear that if this kind of thing goes on the ' plan of campaign '
will perhaps be more welome than the regular and legalised
abatements of the Land Courts.''*

These are the worst cases no doubt, but they show the
system. And be it remembered these holdings are most of them
reclaimed from the mere prairie by the tenant, and therefore
should pay no rent whatever to landlords who have done nothing
for them.

It is clear then that the produce of an Irish farm will only
realize to-day within 15 or 20 per cent, of its value in 1882. It is
also clear that a 20 per cent, fall in prices, which is a fifth, will
swallow up the whole rent which is also a fifth. It is clear too
that out of what remains, viz., 9/3 a week, little if any rent can
be squeezed.

What then should be done ? The people refuse to be turned
out. They have some little property in their holdings — the
buildings, fences, drains, and the tillage which they have
provided by the sweat of their brows ; they have nothing to
turn to. They love their native land, and are unwilling to be
exiled. Eviction means starvation in many cases, or at best the
work-house. If the tenant refuses to be evicted from the holding
which he has reclaimed from the moor and bog, because agricul-
tural depression has made the payment of the accustomed rent
impossible, his resistance may be illegal, but it is natural and
without injustice. He is a partner with his landlord in the little
estate. The laws have acknowledged a joint ownership, and
without doubt the tenant has the larger stake ; for not only is
he the acting partner, but the sole creator of its agricultural
value. Of these partners in trade one has asked of Parliament
an umpire, who should fairly divide the proceeds between them,
but the other has refused all arbitration. An infatuated govern-
ment has rejected all mediation, and why ? Not because they
are deaf to the cries of the poor, but because, being themselves
landlords they sympathise with their class ; because Irish Gov-

* Pall Mall Gazette,

436

ernment is enveloped in an atmosphere of lies ; because Irish
absentee landlords, moving in the society of London, have
persuaded their class in England that the Irish peasantry are
idle, drunken, and dishonest, and could pay if they would.
Hence, Mr. Parnell's Bill was rejected. No wonder Mr.
Gladstone, when asked why he does not open his mouth in con-
demnation of the Plan of Campaign, replies that he supported
the demand of the Irish people for a better plan, but was
defeated. No wonder Mr. T. A. Dickson should say "The Plan
of Campaign I regard as the natural result of the rejection of
Mr. Parnell's Bill, which would have tided over the winter
without collision between landlord and tenant."

It is pretty well understood that landlordism in Ireland is
doomed to extinction. This has been admitted even by the
present Prime Minister. It deserves to fall, for its history is
full of cruelty and destruction of life. Bad as it is, however, we
are unwilling to lay the blame on those who have come into the
inheritance of a vicious system, and are glad to find that even the
Irish Nationalists propose to treat the present landlords as they
would wish to be treated themselves. The words of Mr. T. A.
Dickson, whom I would quote once more, probably express the
opinion of most Irishmen : — "I am anxious to see the landlords
bought out at a fair price, but this must be accomplished at the
risk, and upon the responsibility of the Irish tax -payers ; and alj
payments to redeem land should be converted into a land tax,
the term ' rent ' being abolished ; this land tax to be spread over
forty-nine years, and collected under the control of an Irish
Executive'"

1887.

-«|C^:{E^

437

INDEX,

PAGE

Abercrombie, Forces under, wild and violent . . . . 75

Absenteeism . . . . . . . . 27, 159

Achill, Landlord mercies in . . . . ' . . 228

Act of Union : How secured . . . . . . 81

Pitt's Argument for . . . . . . 82

What it has cost England . . . . 86

Want of Progress since . . . . 157

Unprofitable Compact . . . . 160

Influence on Manufactures . . . . 161

Influence on Municipal Corporations. . . . 163

Are Landlords to be hoisted with their own Petard ? .. 211

Arnold (Dr.). Claims of Roman Catholics .. 109

Arnold (Mr. Matthew) on the Irish demands . . . . 250

Balfour (Right Hon. A. J.). Land Act of 1870 .. 209

Liberals and Commandments . . . . 333

How he kept his Pledges . . . . 392

Trumpery Triumphs . . . . . . 399

Tender mercies of . . . . . . 413

Contradicted by his Colleagues . . . . 417

Barbarities .. .. .. .. 41.42

Barran (Mr. John), M.P. Introduction to Part HI.

Beaconsfield, Lord (Mr. Disraeli). A nation's strength .. 249

Bees, Wingless, make no honey . . . . 82

Benevolent Acts of a Paternal Government . . . . 97

Bessborough Commission .. .. .. 211

Bill Against Combinations . . . . . . 377

43^

pa6e

Blackie (Professor). Authors of Agitations . .• 78

Blunders of Politicians . . . . . . . . 128

Boycotting — in Ireland . . . . . . 295

♦ in England . . . . . . . . 297

Brabourne's (Lord) Criticism of Froude and Gladstone 78

Brehon Laws . . . . . . . . . • 14

Bright (Right Hon. J.). Few means of subsistence for Irish 8, 15

. Ireland turns to America for assistance . . . . 54

On the Act of Union . . . . . . 76

O'Connell's Album . . . . . . 150

Tribute to Mr. Gladstone . . . . 361

Speech to Farmers' Club at Cork . . . . 338

Buckingham, Duke of, on Reform Bill . . . . 286

BulJer (Sir Redvers) made Under-Secretary for Ireland, and

Evidence before Commission . . . . 373

Burke (Edmund). Injustice in Ireland .. .. 32

Penal Code . . . . . . 60

Burke (Mr.), Permanent Secretary in Ireland, Assasinated 237
Butt (Mr. Isaac). Irish Parliament . . .. ..29,47

Conflict with Mr. Parnell . . 222

Caird (Sir James) on Irish Tenancies . . . . 230

Campaign, Plan of . . . . . . . . 378

Canadian System of Home Rule . . . . . . 343

Canning (Right Hon. G.). Resolution in favour of Catholic

Emancipation . . . . . . 103

Duke of Wellington and Peel refuse to act with him 105

Cartoons, Fun's . . . . . . . . 172

Castlereagh and Irish Peasant . . . . . . 96

Catholicism, Attempted Suppression of .. .. 32

Catholic Emancipation. Volunteers meeting . . 70

Delayed . . . . . . loi

Position of Aristocracy . . 104

The Pitt Dinner . . . . 105

Secured at last . . . . 109

Too late to awaken generous sympathy, no

43^

VAok

Catholic Convention .. .. .. a yi

Catholic Places of Worship, Deplorable Condition of . . 185

Refusal of Government to help it 7

Cattle, Prohibited Exportation of . . . . . . 52

Cavendish (Lord F.) Appointed Secretary to Ireland, and

terrible assasination . . . . a 237

Census Commissioners and Famine .. .. 127

Chamberlain (Right Hon. J.). " Why am I a Liberal " . . 334

Refuses to follow Mr. Gladstone . . 364

Causes Round Table Conference to fail . . 363

Changes of Policy . . . . . . . . 6

Chaplin (Mr.), M. P., on Irish History .. .. 9

Charles I. (King) Reign. Rebellion and Revenge . . 40

Charles II. (King) Reign . . .. .. .. 44

Church of Ireland . . . . . , . . 179

Bright's Opinion . . . . 180

Degraded by Alliance with the State 181

Raumer's Views. . .. .. 181

Sydney Smith's Statement . . 181

Count Cavour's Criticism .. .. 182

Government Grants .. .. 187

Peel's Speech . . . . . . 191

Disestablished . . . . 192

. Speeches of Bright and Lowe . . 192

How the Surplus Money was Divided 193

Orange Objections . . . . 193

Churchill (Lord R.) A candid statement . . . . 244

Clancy (J. J.), M.P. " A year of Unionist Coercion " . . 390

Clanricarde (Lord) and his Tenants . . . . 400

Clare Election . . . . . . . . 105

Classes, Testimony of " Respectable " .. .. 83

Cobden (Richard). England responsible for Irish barbarism 54

Coercion without Crime. Evidence of Judges . . . . 375

Coercion. List of Measures .. .. .. 170

Another failure to record .. .. 414

Commerce Crippled by Statute Laws . . , , 5

Commissions, Evidence of . . . . . . 163

Compensation for Disturbance Bill .. .. 223^

445

Condition of Ireland Under the Act of Union —
Emigration and Population. .
Property, Death Rate, Committals for
Education . .
Conflict of Churches
Constituencies, Voice of, on Home Rule
Contradictions between Lord Salisbury and Mr.
Conquered, not Subdued..

Cornwallis (Lord). Ferocity of English Troops
Cowper Commission
Cox (Mr. J. R.). Speech at Ennis
Crime, Landlords Inciting to
Crimes Bill

Characteristics . .

Summary of Measure

How Administered
Crown versus Newsboys
Cromwell's Raid at Drogheda
Curran. Corruption of Irish Parliament

Crime, and

Balfour

165

166
244
269
377
332
76
369
397
391
377
382

384

390

393

Davis (Sir John). Irish History .. .. 23,25,27,31

Davis (Mr. Thomas) on National Unity . . . . 321

Davitt (Mr. Michael). Founding of Land League .. 235

Home Rule and Separation . . 294

Work of an Irish Parliament .. 367

Deane's (Mr.) Irish History . . . . . . 14, 43, 46

Decline of Population . . . . . . . . 165

Devon Commission . . .. .. .. 129

Dicey (Professor). Admissions .. .. .. 108

Act of Union did not lead to National Unity . . iig

Dillon, (Mr. John), M. P. Visit to America .. .. 214

Home Rule ; Not Separation . . 292

Political Independence of Rome 323

Disestablishment of Church of Ireland . . . . 193

Disraeli (Mr.) (Lord Beaconsfield). The real Irish Question 203

Drummond (Sir Thomas). Work in Ireland .. .. iii

Aphorism on the duties of property .. iii

44*

brummond (Professor). Visit to Ireland

Dublin, A Sunday in

Duffy (Sir Gavan). Irish Emigration

Irish Famine and its results
Injury to Ireland by Act of Union

Dufferin (Lord). Irish History
Taxation

Dungannon, Convention at

PAGE

309-314
332
133
136
160

53
6

Education in Ireland

Eldon (Lord). Policy and Letters .. :

Duke of York and the Pitt Dinner
Opinions of Roman Catholicism
Elizabeth (Queen), Policy of
Ellis (Rev. J.). Appendix on the Land Question
Emigration

Statistics

Results of . .
Encumbered Estates Act
England's Greatest Difficulty
England's Interference with other nations. .
English Interference with Grattan's Parliament
Evening at Cork. Police Espionage
Evictions. Views of S. G. O. in the Times

Lord J. Russell's Speech

Mr. John Bright's Statements

Mr. Butt's Opinions

Dr. Nulty's Statement . .

Glenveigh

,, Captain Kennedy's Report

Dr. Spence Watson

Increase after Land Act, 1870
Excuse for Delaying Remedies in Ireland . .
Exportation of Goods Prohibited

Executive in Ireland Counteracting Representative Government
Extent of a Government's Sympathy

231
102

104-105

105

425

134-135
165
211
143
5
287

79
411

143
146

150
147
149

150
151
151
207

257
144

146,

Failure of Feeble Remedies
Fawcett (Henry), M.P.

Fitzwilliam (Earl) sent out as Lord Lieutenant . .
Proposals to Premier
Recall

Result of Recall in Ireland . .
Flood. On Irish Parliament
Forcing a man to be a Volunteer
Forster (Right Hon. W. E.). Secretaryship ..
Opposition of Tories . .
Compared with Mr. Balfour
Resignation of Secretaryship
Forty Shilling Freeholders, Influence of

How they were punished for patriotism
Fox (C. J.) Supports Grattan

Resolution in House of Commons
Presents Catholic Petition
His desire for Irish Government
Death
Franchise Extended : Its Influence
Freedom of Contract
Froude. Forcing a Reformation
Confiscation of Land
Crippling of Trade . .
Depopulation of Ireland . .
The Irish Parliament

Gardiner (Hon. Luke). Consequences of Injustice
General Gordon. Irish Misery

Needs of Ireland . .
Genius of Statesman versus Madness of King
George IV. (King) and Catholic Emancipation . .
Gladstone (Right Hon. W. E.). Land Hunger in Ireland

Views of Nationality

Clerkenwell Explosion

Bill for Disestalplishment . . . .

PAGE

i68

. . 29, 48

258

222

223

224

237

104

107

93
177
100
256
ig6
33. 34. 35

38
51.54

220

371
92

107

15
122
189
191

443

pXge

Gladstone (Right Hon. W.E.). Land Act of 1870 .. 194*

Irish Education . . . . . . 233

Defeat on Irish Education . . . . 235

To the fore on Home Rule and Land Reform . . 249 ^

Far-seeing Policy . . . . . . 266 ^

Pace too swift for Rival Leaders . . . . 267

Influence on Irish Agitation . . . . 268

Causes of Defeat on Home Rule . . . . 348

Abuse by Opponents . . . . 350

Tory Poetry at Lord Londonderry's. . . . 352

Charged with Intolerance . . . . 353

Concessions . . . . . . . . 353

Mr. John Bright's Tribute . . . . 361 '

Gladstone (Mr. Herbert), M.P. Boycotting in England .. 297

Goethe on English Parliamentary Parties . . 360

Gospel greater than Church Systems . . . . 331

Government Assaults -on Free Speech ., .. 395

Meanness in Administering Law . . .. 411

Grattan (Henry) . Retribution.. .. .. 61

Rise to Eminence . . . . . . 62

Resolution in favour of Irish Parliamentary

Independence . . . . . . 63

Ireland's Progress . . . . . . 66

Irish Representation . . . . . . 68

Warning to Pitt . . . . . . 89

Act of Union Opposed by Unbribed Intellect . . 94

Death . . . . . . . . 103

Grattan's Parliament, Defects of .. .. .. 68

Granville (Earl) on Mr. Disraeli's Views . . . . 336

Great Interests at Stake . . . . . . . . 329

Green (Mr. J. R.). Irish Conquest .. .. 24

Conciliation Lost . . . . . . . . 71

Opinion of Mr. Pitt . . . . . . 77

Grenville (Lord). Ireland's Progress under own Parliament 83
Grey (Lord). Ireland's Progress under own Parliament,

from 1782 to 1799 . . . . . . . . 83

Guizot. Irish History . . . . . . 18

Gulliver Bound with Threads . . . . . . 284

44+

Hampden (Lord) on Home Rule . . . »

Hartington (Lord). Parallels to Home Rule . .
Harvest, Failure of, in Ireland . .

Healy (Mr. T. M.), M.P. A Government's Sympathy
Ireland's Loss through Absenteeism
Imperfections of 1870 Land Act
Clause in Land Bill, 1881
Slain Land Bills . .
Henry II. (King). Visit to Ireland
Henry VIII. (King). Reformation and Suzerainty
Herrings, Proposal to Tax
Home Rule Movement. How Commenced

Mr. Gladstone's Measure

Political Objections . .

Concessions too large

Irishmen not fit to be trusted

Pretext for Separation

Ingratitude of Irishmen

Religious Objections

Home Rule means Rome Rule

Oppression of Protestants by Catholics feared

O'Connell's Words

Dr. Wylie's Views

Mr. Lecky's Statements

Lord Spencer on . .

Protestant Leaders of . .

Sprung on the Country

What is Essential in a Home Rule Bill

Benefits likely to accrue to England
Howick's (Lord) Bill for benefiting sons of Catholic gentry
Hume. Conduct of Military in Ireland
Hutchinson (Hely). Irish and English Statute Law similar

pAge

335

288

212

144

158

2og

226

250-1

249

259
375
284
285
291

295
301
302
302
302
304-5
307
307
316
338
355
422
102
30
51

IlHngworth (Mr. Alfred), M.P.
Visit to Ireland

Preface to Part I.

420

445

Ireland. Colonization

PAQB
13

Ancient Government

. .

Early Land System . .

Christianized . .

. .

Invasions

• .

English Invasion

. .

English Policy there..

Needs of

. .

Prosperity under own Parliament

Social Customs Destroyed . .

. .

135

Compared v^rith Scotland

276

Compared with Southern States of America

288

Present Methods of Government

346

The True Conquest

420

Irish People, Deprivations of . .

Petitions of, Rejected . .

Irish Parliament

Insurrections

Famine

124

Landlords and Famine

126

A Royal Duke's Compassion

126

Poor Law Enquiry . .

129

Failure of Remedies

130

Red Tape

133

Influence of Laws on National Feeling

154

Representation at Westminster

354

James II. (King). Wars in Ireland

Jebb (Mr. Justice). Ireland's Commerce

during time of own

Parliament

Kilkenny, Statute of

Kimberley (Earl), on Ireland's requirements

30
42?

446

Land, Theft of

Legal Confiscations

Repeated Confiscations

Clearing the . .

System of Landlordism

No Security for Improvements

Influence of Land System on Irish Character

Act of 1870 . .

Compensation for Improvements

Dual Ownership

Tory Opposition to Remedies. .

Defects in Mr. Gladstone's Bill

Failure to Grapple with Rack-Renting . .

Bill of 1881 ..

Healy Clause
Made of little effect
Bills Defeated
Mr. Gladstone's Last Bill
Influence of Land Bill in Liberal Defeat . .
Tory attempts to deal with question
Land League Originated . .
Landlordism and the Law
Law and Private Contracts
Lecky. Ruin of Irish Industries
Depopulation of Ireland
Interference with Irish Parliament
Public Revenue Divided
Irish Government and English Politics
Irish Parliament : Guardian of Country
Act of Union

Opinion of Imperial Parliament
"What the Act of Union did
Views on Penal Laws
Irish not a Persecuting People . .
Legend, Welsh
Leland. History . .

Military Occupation , , , ,

PAGE

447

PAGE

Liberal Re-union . . . . . . . . 362

Liberty, A People's True. . .. .. .. 421

Limerick, Treaty of . . . . . . 49

Lowther's (Right Hon. J.) Folly .. .. .. 213

Macaulay (Dr.). Irish Peasantry and Priests .. 308

Maginn (Dr.). Letter to Lord Stanley .. .. 314

Mansion House Committee on Irish Destitution . . 217

Manufactures Crippled or Destroyed . . . . 52

McNeill. Mr. Swift . . . . . . 46, 47

Meagher. Mr. T. Francis, National Brotherhood . . 319

Meeting at Leinster Hall . . . . . . 409

Members of Parliament Imprisoned . . . . . . 398

Speeches . . . . . . . . 399

Mill (Mr. J. Stuart). Irish Famine . . .. .. 129

Mitchell (Mr. John). Nationality and Catholic Church .. 319

Mitchelstown . . . . . . . . 395, 408

Modern Balaams . . . . . . . . 373

Modern Star Chambers . . . . . . 405

Montalembert. Early Irish History . . . . 18

Morley (Right Hon. John). No Vacancy in the Leadership 270

MuUhall (Mr.). Statistics .. .. ..165,167

National Phlebotomy . . , . . . 169

Nationalism and Government Em oy^s . . . . 418

National League Restrains Crime . . . . 300

Meeting at Cork 7. . • . • 410

New Era of Legislation . . . . . . 178

North (Lord). Irish and English Equality in Commercial Laws 51

Nulty (Dr.). Irish Evictions .. .. .. 149

O'Brien (Mr. Wm,), M.P. Home Rule and Separation .. 294

Papal Rescript . . , . . . 323

Mitchelstown . . . . . . . , 395

Irish Forgiveness and Friendship . . 421

448

O'Connell (Mr. Daniel). Ireland's Progress in 1799

Personal Influence

Separation

Speech on Repeal of the Union

Speech on Failure of Act of Union

Domestic Parliament and Famine . .

Last Arguments and Death

Relation of Irish Catholics to Church

Repudiation of Politics from Rome

Religious Intolerance
O'Connor (Mr. T. P.), M.P. Parnell Movement

Work of Court Martials . .

Various Acts

Opinions of Unionists

Irish Famine . . . . . . 130,

Charges against Mr. Gladstone
O'Donnell (Rev. P.). Star Chamber Clause of Crimes Bill
Orangemen and Peep-o'-day Boys . .

Bluster at Disestablishment

Orange Lodges and Dissolution of Union

Boasted Loyalty

Lord Stanley's Estimate of Orangemen

Lord Palmerston's Opinion
Ormonde (Lord)

Palmerston (Lord). Irish Landlords and Evictions

Papal Rescript and Nationalists' Reply . .

Parliamentary Documents on Ireland's Progress under her

own Parliament
Parnell (Mr. C. S.). M.P. Visit to America

Growth of Influence

Letter on Lord F. Cavendish Assassination . .

Irish Representation at Westminster . .

Bills Introduced by him

Commission
Parnellism and the Times Newspaper
Peel (Sir Robert). Refusal to act with Canning

PAGE
85

93
90

95
103
129
142
302

307
320

112

131. 133

449

PAGE

Consents to Catholic Emancipation . . io8

Reasons . . . . . . . . . . io8

Speech on Official Report of Evictions . . 141

Kilrush Evictions . . . . . . . . 144

Irish Church . . . . . . . . 191

Irish Schoolboy's Examination ,. .. 301

Peep-o'-day Boys . . . . . . . . 75

Penal Laws . . . . . . . . . . 58

Perceval (Mr.), M.P. Speech on Lord Howick's Bill 102

Persecuting Code . . . . . . . . 49

Persecution, Failure of . . . . . . . . 62

Personal Visit to Ireland, Lessons learnt during . . 419

Phoenix Park. Meeting of Nationalists and Papal Rescript 325

Pitt (Mr. William). Golden Opportunity .. .. 76

Object in securing Act of Union
Surrender to the King
Retirement from Office
His Desertion of the Catholics .
Death
Plunkett (Mr.). Ireland's Progress under
Police Protection : What it costs

Violation of Ordinary Law . .
Espionage at Cork
Policy, The True, for Ireland
Political Economy and Humanity

Principles at Stake
Poor Imitations of Real Article
Pope (His Holiness the). Transactions with King Henry II, 23

Poynings Law. . .. .. .. .. 45

Modified . . . . . . 67

Prendergast (Mr.). Land Divisions. . .. .. 45

Priest and Milkman : Limits of Watering Milk . . 203

Prisons, more needed .. .. .. .. ^18

Protestant Reformation . . . . . . 31

Protestantism Reassured . . . . . . . . 245

National Leaders, Protestant . . 316

Exclusive Character of . . . . 317

Purposes of Government . . . . . . 290

94
90

91
91
100
own Parliament . . 83
236
407
411
271
155
334
372

450

PAGE

Raumer (German Historian). Church of Ireland .. i8i

Reed (Mr. H. Byron), M.P. Boast a stigma on Bradford 274

Republicanism and Reform . . . . . . 286

Responsibility of English Masses . . . . 423

Resolutions on Irish Parliament in 1799 by Bankers and

Merchants . . . . . . . . 84

Richard II. (King) and Ireland .. .. 39

Rule of the Estate .. .. .. .. 152

Round Table Conference . . . . . . 363

Russell (Lord John). Irish Evictions ... .. 146

Irish Self-Governraent . . . . . . 284

Salisbury (Lord). Hottentot Theory .. .. 273

Views in 1865 ... . . . . 289

On British Taxpayer . . . , . . 368

Scrope (Mr. Poulett), M.P. An Englishman's Opinion of

Irish Evictions . . 140

Scruton (Mr.). Formation of Irish Parhament .. 66

Corruption of Irish Parliament . . 69

Self-Government Successful in other Lands . . 341

Servant Girls in America Taxed . . . . . . 220

Shaw-Lefevre (Right Hon. G. J.), M.P. Introduction to Part IV.
Pitt and George IV. . . . . . . 92

Comment on Mr. Poulett Scrope .. 141

Speech at Bradford . . . . . . 401

Shelburne (Lord) . Resolution in Favour of an Irish Parliament 64
Smith (Mr. Goldwin). Irish History and Irish Character

II, 18, 28, 36, 43, 44, 50, 58
Justice deliberately put aside . . . . 59

How English learnt to reverence Law . . 115

Views on Irish Disaffection .. .. .. 116

Why Irish Legislation has Failed . . . . 116

Fenian Movement ,. .. .. 117

What is Fundamental in Land Question . . 117

Spanser (Edmund) . . . . . . . . 33

451

Strafford (Earl). Policy of " thorough " . .

Sullivan (Mr. T. D.), M.P. Home Rule and Separation

Swift (Dean). Irish Taxation

Exclusion of Catholics at Bandon . .

A Modest Proposal

Ireland not Dependent on England . .

PAGE

41
293
53
61
61
62

The Hour and the Man . . . . . . • • i73

Times Newspaper. English Interference with the Irish

Parliament . . . . 79

Sir James Caird's Statements on Land Question . . 230

Parnellism and Crime .. .. .. 415

Tithe Agitation .. .. .. .. 182

Converted into Rent-Charge .. .. .. 184

Tories and Compensation . . . . . . 223

Tory Alliance with Parnellites . . . . . . 238

Pledges to gain places in Parliament . . 239

Truckling for the Irish Vote . . . . . . 241

Objections to Home Rule . . . . 273

Will they grant Home Rule ? . . . . . . 368

Return to Traditional Policy . . . . 374

Trevelyan (Sir George) on Mr. Gladstone . . . . 353

Tuke (Mr.). Irish Famine .. .. .. 125

Ulster Tenant Right .. .. .. ..199

Voice of Ulster in Elections . . . . 256

Supposed Superiority to other Districts. . . .278, 284

Unionism, The True . . . . . . 266

Unionists, Liberal, Considering Home Rule with Tories . . 340
Protests Against Coercion to Gain Seats

in Parliament . . . . 348

How received at Bye-Elections . . 362

United Irishmen . . . . . . . . 71

Usher (Archbishop) . . . . . . . . 23

452

PAGE

. V

Volunteers, Formation of . . . . . . . . 65

Meeting to consider Reform and Emancipation 70

Watson (Dr. Spence) English Tyranny . . . . 54

Grattan's Proposals . . . . . . 63

Evictions . . . . . . . . 151

Heidelberg.. .. .. .. 328

Wayman (Mr. Thomas), M.P. Introduction to Part II.

Wellington (Duke of). Refusal to act with Canning . . 105
Chooses between Catholic Emancipation and

Rebellion .. .. .. io6

Motives for Catholic Emancipation . . 107

Would Mr. Gladstone's Death stop Home Rule ? . . 271

William III. (King).. .. .. .. 49

Witnesses at Commissions . . . . . . 164

Woodford, John Roche at . . . . . . 412

Work for Unemployed Soldiers . . . . . • 380

Wylies' (Dr.) Views on Catholic Exclusion . . 304-6

York, Duke of, and Catholic Emancipation . . . . 102

Of THE ^

*'ig^:m:

^tB^^^^it^"^

'fM

4/.

.*: ^.5^

.•:^.:/-)J^

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The government of Ireland, past, present, and prospective .."

See other formats